Nathan Miller, et al. v. Republican Party of Minnesota, et al.

Federal and state courts have considered several different state statutes banning false campaign speech, but are in conflict on whether such state statutes are unconstitutional content-based restrictions on political speech. See, e.g., Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 814 F.3d 466, 476 (6th Cir. 2016); 281 Care Comm. v. Arneson, 766 F.3d 774, 796 (8th Cir. 2014); Linert v. MacDonald, 901 N.W.2d 664, 670 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017); Make Liberty Win v. Cegavske, 499 F.Supp.3d 794, 803 (D.Nev. 2020). To resolve an important, constitutional question, the question presented is: Whether state statutes broadly banning false campaign speech, such as Minnesota Statutes § 211B.02, are unconstitutional, if not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest.