Minnesota
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Hunt
The ACLU and ACLU of Minnesota intervened as defendants to block an attempt by Minnesota Voters Alliance -- a private plaintiff group -- to challenge a law that restored voting rights to individuals convicted of a felony while they are "not incarcerated for the offense" and "including any period when they are on work release."
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View Case
Visit ACLU of Minnesota
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
All Cases
6 Minnesota Cases
Minnesota Supreme Court
Dec 2023
![State v Malecha](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
State v Malecha
In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court is considering the scope of a crucial doctrine that protects criminal defendants from being convicted based on evidence obtained in violation of their constitutional rights. Under both the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions, courts apply an “exclusionary rule” that allows criminal defendants to seek the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of their rights. For nearly 40 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has chipped away at the exclusionary rule by adopting and expanding the “good faith exception,” a doctrine providing that in some situations courts need not exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution. In this case, officers acquired evidence after arresting someone based on a warrant that was listed as valid due to a recordkeeping error, but which in fact should have been recalled. In July 2023, together with other ACLU attorneys and partners, the SSCI submitted an amicus brief to the Minnesota Supreme Court asking it to hold as a matter of state constitutional law that the exclusionary rule applies to this situation, and that the good-faith exception does not apply. In March 2024, the Court ruled in the ACLU's favor, stating that the district court did not err in finding that the defendant's arrest warrant had been quashed before her arrest and the good-faith exception did not apply.
Status: Closed
View case
![State v Malecha](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Minnesota Supreme Court
Criminal Law Reform
State v Malecha
In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court is considering the scope of a crucial doctrine that protects criminal defendants from being convicted based on evidence obtained in violation of their constitutional rights. Under both the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions, courts apply an “exclusionary rule” that allows criminal defendants to seek the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of their rights. For nearly 40 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has chipped away at the exclusionary rule by adopting and expanding the “good faith exception,” a doctrine providing that in some situations courts need not exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution. In this case, officers acquired evidence after arresting someone based on a warrant that was listed as valid due to a recordkeeping error, but which in fact should have been recalled. In July 2023, together with other ACLU attorneys and partners, the SSCI submitted an amicus brief to the Minnesota Supreme Court asking it to hold as a matter of state constitutional law that the exclusionary rule applies to this situation, and that the good-faith exception does not apply. In March 2024, the Court ruled in the ACLU's favor, stating that the district court did not err in finding that the defendant's arrest warrant had been quashed before her arrest and the good-faith exception did not apply.
Dec 2023
Status: Closed
View case
Minnesota Supreme Court
Apr 2023
![Minnesota](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/04/MINNESOTA_VOTING_RIGHTS-V4-Blog-600x400.jpg)
Schroeder v. Minnesota Secretary of State
This case challenged the denial of the right to vote of people convicted of felonies but subject to parole, probation, or other supervised released in Minnesota.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![Minnesota](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/04/MINNESOTA_VOTING_RIGHTS-V4-Blog-600x400.jpg)
Minnesota Supreme Court
Voting Rights
Schroeder v. Minnesota Secretary of State
This case challenged the denial of the right to vote of people convicted of felonies but subject to parole, probation, or other supervised released in Minnesota.
Apr 2023
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2023
![Tyler v. Hennepin County](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Tyler v. Hennepin County
This case concerns whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
![Tyler v. Hennepin County](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
U.S. Supreme Court
Criminal Law Reform
Tyler v. Hennepin County
This case concerns whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause.
Mar 2023
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View case
Minnesota
Mar 2022
![Uniformed Officer](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Screen Shot 2022-03-23 at 5.39.58 PM-600x311.png)
Kariye v Mayorkas
In March 2022, the ACLU, ACLU of Minnesota, and ACLU of Southern California filed a lawsuit on behalf of three Muslim Americans who have been subjected to intrusive questioning from border officers about their religious beliefs, practices, and associations in violation of their constitutional rights.
Status: Ongoing
View case
![Uniformed Officer](https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/01/Screen Shot 2022-03-23 at 5.39.58 PM-600x311.png)
Minnesota
Civil Liberties
Kariye v Mayorkas
In March 2022, the ACLU, ACLU of Minnesota, and ACLU of Southern California filed a lawsuit on behalf of three Muslim Americans who have been subjected to intrusive questioning from border officers about their religious beliefs, practices, and associations in violation of their constitutional rights.
Mar 2022
Status: Ongoing
View case
Minnesota
Oct 2016
![Privacy Matters v. U.S. Department of Education](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Privacy Matters v. U.S. Department of Education
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Minnesota, and Stinson Leonard Street LLP filed a motion to intervene on behalf of a transgender student in a lawsuit that seeks to bar trans students from using locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. This case is similar to lawsuits filed around the country that are trying to prevent transgender students from using the locker rooms and restrooms that match their gender identity.
Status: Closed (Voluntarily Dismissed)
View case
![Privacy Matters v. U.S. Department of Education](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/themes/aclu-wp/img/fallback-case-gavel.png)
Minnesota
LGBTQ Rights
Privacy Matters v. U.S. Department of Education
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Minnesota, and Stinson Leonard Street LLP filed a motion to intervene on behalf of a transgender student in a lawsuit that seeks to bar trans students from using locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. This case is similar to lawsuits filed around the country that are trying to prevent transgender students from using the locker rooms and restrooms that match their gender identity.
Oct 2016
Status: Closed (Voluntarily Dismissed)
View case