Case Brief on Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky - Law Assignment

This case brief analyzes the Supreme Court case Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, which concerns the constitutionality of a Minnesota law prohibiting political apparel in polling places on Election Day. The brief outlines the facts, including the prohibition and the subsequent lawsuit filed by the Election Integrity Watch and others, arguing the law violated First Amendment rights. It details the procedural history, from the District Court's dismissal to the Eighth Circuit's affirmation, culminating in a Supreme Court review. The issue centers on whether the Minnesota statute infringed upon the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The brief applies the relevant legal rules, noting the non-public forum status of polling places, which allows for reasonable speech restrictions. The application section highlights the statute's restriction on expression and the broad discretion afforded by the law in defining 'political'. The conclusion reveals the Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The brief follows the IRAC method, providing a clear understanding of the legal arguments and outcomes.

Running head: CASE BRIEF
CASE BRIEF
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1CASE BRIEF
FACTS:
It has been stated by Minnesota Statute § 211B.II that individuals are prevented from
wearing any kind of political apparel on the election days in the polling areas. The present case
came into being when the execute director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance named Andrew
Click was prohibited from voting as he was wearing t-shirt with a political party logo. As an
outcome a suit was filed against Minnesota Secretary of State and election officials by Election
Integrity Watch (EIW) and others that statute was unconstitutional as First Amendment and
Equal Protection rights were violated.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
At the initial stage, all the claims were dismissed by District Court. But the claims were
affirmed by the 8th circuit. Summary judgment was granted against EIW by district court
(Zelinsky, 2019). Then EIW filed a petition of writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court to decide
on the decision made by lower court.
ISSUE:
Whether Minnesota Statute § 211B.II infringed the Free Speech Clause of the First
Amendment.
RULES:
The First Amendment prevents laws that abridge the freedom of an individual pertaining
to speech. However, it was reasoned by court that polling place being a non-public forum,
reasonable limits can be imposed on speech (Calvert, 2019).
APPLICATION:

2CASE BRIEF
The ban imposed by Minnesota statute was putting restrictions on the expression form
under the protection of First Amendment. Although non-public forum is in issue, as the stature
does not give proper definition of term ‘political’, too much discretion was afforded by law to
enforce the ban and hence unreasonable.
CONCLUSION:
However, judgment given by Appellate Court has been reversed and case has been
remanded for proceedings.

3CASE BRIEF
References:
Calvert, C. (2019). Certifying Questions in First Amendment Cases: Free Speech, Statutory
Ambiguity, and Definitive Interpretations. Boston College Law Review, 60(5), 1349.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, No. 16-1435, 585 U.S. __, 138 S. Ct. 1876 (2018).
Zelinsky, E. A. (2019). Applying the First Amendment to the Internal Revenue Code: Minnesota
Voters Alliance and the Tax Law’s Regulation of Nonprofit Organizations’ Political
Speech. Albany Law Review, Forthcoming.