And now.....the lawyers.

As I observed the buffet of lunacy to come out of this year's Minnesota state legislative session, I often opined that the DFL majority's methodology was the equivalent of throwing a bunch of crap against the wall and seeing what sticks. My sense was they knew a sizable amount of the stuff they passed (and then had signed into law by Nebraska Fats Gov. Tim Walz) was, at best, legally dubious. Nevertheless, DFLers emitted an air of "Well.....they can't sue us for everything."

Maybe not. But this is certainly a good start.  

The Minnesota Legislature's historically productive session has prompted a flurry of legal challenges, many arguing that Democratic lawmakers overstepped their constitutional authority.

A national trade group representing generic drug manufacturers sued Minnesota on Wednesday over a new law meant to minimize prescription drug price increases. Two new election laws have also been challenged — including one that restored voting rights for felons, as well as another law relating to the state's Postsecondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program.

"I think they were all easy to anticipate," GOP state Rep. Harry Niska, an attorney, said of the lawsuits, adding that he raised concerns about the constitutionality of the legislative actions during the session. "It's unfortunate that those concerns weren't taken into consideration before we went forward with the laws."

With all due respect to my friend Harry Niska, the constitutional concerns were taken into consideration. They were either dismissed up front or provisions addressing said concerns were stripped out of the final legislation in conference committee.  

As I've said many times before, I am the furthest thing from a legal scholar, so I have absolutely no insight on how some of these cases will fair. That said, leftists' crafting law discriminating against an institution's fee exercise of religion would appear to be the most "open and shut" of 'em all. 

A lawsuit filed by two Christian colleges and a group of parents over changes to the state's PSEO program is proceeding, with a judge ordering state officials to not enforce the new law while the legal process unfolds.

The law prohibits postsecondary institutions that participate in PSEO from requiring a faith statement during the application process. The two schools that are suing — Crown College in St. Bonifacius, Minn., and the University of Northwestern in St. Paul — ask students to affirm the schools' religious beliefs.

Those colleges said the new law takes away their ability to offer college credits to high school students at no cost.

Democrats have said that isn't the case, noting they aren't barring the colleges from offering the PSEO program, just prohibiting them from requiring students to submit faith statements in order to participate.

The only workaround for the state here is to disallow all private institutions from participating in PSEO since public colleges all already prohibited from establishing any kind of religious orientation. But once Minnesota allowed private entities to partake, they can't ban those which choose to require a "statement of faith." That is a clear violation of the First Amendment. 

 

Niska, the Republican legislator, said he thinks some of the laws being challenged will be struck down. And he believes more lawsuits could be filed soon over laws relating to renewable energy standards and election policy changes.

"I think we should be a lot more careful about how we write laws, and we should really try to anticipate the ways in which affected parties might bring lawsuits challenging them," Niska said.

As I have also conveyed previously, the DFL is governing as if they have a clear path to California style majorities. If any of their most recent legislation gets struck down, it's nothing to them to put forth alternative bills which serve as "workarounds." The only question is how vigilant dissenters will remain given the potential for endless lawsuits. 

------------------------------------------------