Filed: Aug. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-1682 _ Minnesota Majority lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff Minnesota Voters Alliance; Minnesota Northstar Tea Party Patriots; Election Integrity Watch; Susan Jeffers, individually and as an election judge; Dan McGrath; Andy Cilek lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants v. Joe Mansky, in his official capacity as the Elections Manager for Ramsey County; Virginia Gelms, in her individual and official capacity as the Elections Manager
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-1682 _ Minnesota Majority lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff Minnesota Voters Alliance; Minnesota Northstar Tea Party Patriots; Election Integrity Watch; Susan Jeffers, individually and as an election judge; Dan McGrath; Andy Cilek lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants v. Joe Mansky, in his official capacity as the Elections Manager for Ramsey County; Virginia Gelms, in her individual and official capacity as the Elections Manager ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-1682
___________________________
Minnesota Majority
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff
Minnesota Voters Alliance; Minnesota Northstar Tea Party Patriots; Election
Integrity Watch; Susan Jeffers, individually and as an election judge; Dan
McGrath; Andy Cilek
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants
v.
Joe Mansky, in his official capacity as the Elections Manager for Ramsey County;
Virginia Gelms, in her individual and official capacity as the Elections Manager
for Hennepin County; Mike Freeman, in his official capacity as Hennepin County
Attorney; John Choi, in his official capacity as Ramsey County Attorney; Steve
Simon, in his official capacity as Secretary of State
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
___________________________
No. 15-1741
___________________________
Minnesota Majority
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff
Minnesota Voters Alliance; Minnesota Northstar Tea Party Patriots; Election
Integrity Watch; Susan Jeffers, individually and as an election judge; Dan
McGrath; Andy Cilek
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellees
v.
Joe Mansky, in his official capacity as the Elections Manager for Ramsey County;
Virginia Gelms, in her individual and official capacity as the Elections Manager
for Hennepin County; Mike Freeman, in his official capacity as Hennepin County
Attorney; John Choi, in his official capacity as Ramsey County Attorney
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants
Steve Simon, in his official capacity as Secretary of State
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
____________
Submitted: July 18, 2018
Filed: August 3, 2018
[Published]
____________
Before RILEY, Chief Judge, LOKEN and BENTON, Circuit Judges.1
____________
PER CURIAM.
This case is on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 138 S. Ct. 1876 (2018). In 2010, several
organizations and individuals sued the Minnesota Secretary of State and Ramsey and
Hennepin county election officials, attacking a statute prohibiting the wearing of
1
The Honorable William Jay Riley, then Chief Judge, United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, now retired, took no part in this decision. This
opinion is filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. Rule 47E.
-2-
political insignia inside a polling place. This court reversed dismissal of the
defendants’ as-applied First Amendment claim. Minnesota Majority v. Mansky, 708
F.3d 1051, 1059 (8th Cir. 2013). On remand, the district court granted summary
judgment for the defendants. This court affirmed, holding that the statute, as applied,
did not violate the First Amendment. Minnesota Majority v. Mansky,
849 F.3d 749,
753 (8th Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the
statute violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Mansky, 138 S. Ct.
at 1891-92.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mansky, this court reverses the
grant of summary judgment for the defendants.
*******
The case is remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
_______________
-3-
