A federal appeals court has ruled that a Minnesota law barring people from knowingly sharing false information about voting eligibility within 60 days of an election violates the First Amendment.

On August 20, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a lower court’s refusal to grant a preliminary injunction, directing the district court to block enforcement of key parts of Minnesota Statutes § 211B.075 against the plaintiffs.

The legal challenge stems from Minnesota House File 28, passed in 2023. The statute made it a gross misdemeanor to transmit information within 60 days of an election that a person knows to be materially false, with the intent to impede or prevent someone from voting.

The law also allowed county attorneys, the state attorney general, or injured individuals to seek civil penalties up to $1,000 and court orders to restrain speech before it happens.

The Minnesota Voters Alliance, along with individual voters Mary Amlaw and Tim Kirk, filed a federal lawsuit against Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Anoka County Attorney Brad Johnson. Represented by the Liberty Justice Center and the Upper Midwest Law Center, the group argued the measure unconstitutionally restricted public debate over whether the state constitution allows individuals convicted of felonies to vote before completing parole or supervised release.Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge David R. Stras explained that the statute constitutes a content-based restriction on core political speech, failing strict scrutiny. Stras noted that rather than suppressing speech, the state has more narrowly tailored remedies available, including launching educational campaigns and providing direct voter eligibility information.

“The core promise of the First Amendment is that the government cannot appoint itself the arbiter of truth or silence political debate simply because an election is near,” said Reilly Stephens, Senior Counsel at the Liberty Justice Center. “House File 28 was an unconstitutional attempt to chill public discussion on vital constitutional and legal questions. We are thrilled the court recognized that the right to freely debate elections belongs to the people, not the state.”

The Eighth Circuit also held that the law’s provision permitting courts to preemptively enjoin speech based on a “reasonable basis” standard acted as an unconstitutional prior restraint. While rejecting the plaintiffs’ facial vagueness arguments, the court remanded the case for the entry of a preliminary injunction protecting the plaintiffs.