Documents

 
In the state intermediate court:

Minnesota Court of Appeals decision

 
In the state supreme court:

Appellant’s brief

Respondent’s merit brief

Amicus brief – Media Coalition

Amicus brief – ACLU of MN

 

The law

Section 617.261

Citation

State of Minnesota v. Casillas, 938 N.W.2d 74 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019), petition for review granted, No. A19-0576 (Minn. Sup. Ct., Mar. 17, 2020)

Summary

On May 20, 2020, some members of Media Coalition and other organizations filed an amicus brief in the Minnesota Supreme Court, urging the judges to affirm the decision of the Minnesota appellate court striking down the state’s law barring the dissemination of certain images if the publisher knew or should have known the person in the image did not consent to the distribution.

On December 23, 2019, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court and held that the law was unconstitutional because it used a negligence standard for knowledge as to whether the person in the image had consented to the dissemination and because the law lacks a malicious intent element. The court held that the law was a content-based restriction on speech that did not fit into a categorical exception to the First Amendment.

The amicus brief

The brief of the media groups urges the Minnesota Supreme Court to uphold the lower court decision striking down the law. The brief argues:

  • The law is presumptively unconstitutional because it is a content-based regulation on speech that is subject to strict scrutiny since it does not fit into an existing categorical exception to the First Amendment. It is irrelevant that it is meant to protect privacy.
  • The law is unconstitutional under strict scrutiny review because it lacks an intent to harm element and because the negligence standard for knowledge of whether the person in the image consented to the publication is unconstitutional when criminalizing the publication of images.
  • The great majority of states that have enacted laws to bar dissemination of images without consent include an intent to harm element.

The brief was signed by American Booksellers Association, Association of American Publishers, Media Coalition Foundation, and National Press Photographers Association.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota also filed an amicus brief.

Background

The state of Minnesota filed a Petition for Further Review in the Minnesota Supreme Court, which was granted on March 17, 2020.

On April 1, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted a motion made by the American Booksellers Association, Association of American Publishers, National Press Photographers Association, and Media Coalition Foundation for leave to file an amicus brief urging affirmance of the decision holding the statute unconstitutional.

This is a prosecution under the Minnesota “intimate images” (“revenge porn”) statute. The trial court’s decision upholding the statute was reversed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court) on December 23, 2019, in a very well-reasoned opinion, finding the statute facially overbroad.