Minnesota Gun Owners Causes v. Minnesota
Case Attorneys: Nicholas Nelson and Rachel Paulose
Challenging a “Frankenstein” Omnibus Bill
The Upper Midwest Law Center represents the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus in a constitutional challenge to the massive 2024 Omnibus Bill passed by the Minnesota Legislature.
The lawsuit argues that the bill violates the Single Subject Clause of the Minnesota Constitution, a safeguard designed to prevent lawmakers from combining dozens of unrelated policies into a single piece of legislation.
In this case, lawmakers bundled hundreds of provisions—covering topics as varied as broadband regulation, health insurance, transportation policy, utilities, and abortion—into a nearly 1,400-page bill that was nominally about the “operation and financing of state government.”
Tucked into that sprawling legislation was a criminal prohibition on binary triggers, a firearm component that allows a firearm to discharge once when the trigger is pulled and once when it is released.
UMLC’s lawsuit argues that inserting a gun regulation into a massive tax-and-spending bill is exactly the kind of legislative “logrolling” the Minnesota Constitution was designed to prevent.
The Constitutional Issue
Minnesota’s Single Subject Clause requires legislation to address only one subject and clearly describe that subject in the bill’s title.
The rule exists to protect transparency in lawmaking and prevent legislators from passing controversial provisions by attaching them to large bills that must pass for unrelated reasons.
According to the lawsuit, the 2024 Omnibus Bill represents one of the most extreme examples of this practice in recent memory.
Originally introduced as a relatively modest tax bill, the legislation grew into a sprawling measure covering dozens of unrelated policy areas, making meaningful debate and public scrutiny nearly impossible.
District Court Victory
In August 2024, Ramsey County District Court Judge Leonardo Castro ruled in favor of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.
The court held that the omnibus bill violated the Single Subject Clause and permanently enjoined state officials from enforcing the bill’s binary trigger ban.
Judge Castro ordered the unconstitutional provision severed from the law and delivered a sharp rebuke to the legislature’s legislative tactics.
In his opinion, the judge noted that the bill’s structure leaves the public and affected businesses with little choice but to challenge individual provisions in court:
“Instead, that burden will be shifted to the people and businesses of Minnesota who will be forced to bring hundreds of lawsuits… to hack off, piece by piece, its many offending portions.”
While the court removed the challenged provision, the ruling made clear that the broader constitutional problems with the omnibus bill remain.
State Attempt to Reinstate the Law Rejected
Following the ruling, Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison asked the court to stay the decision and temporarily reinstate the binary trigger ban while the State pursued its appeal.
The court rejected that request.
Judge Castro emphasized that enforcing the provision would mean reviving a criminal law that was never constitutionally enacted.
The court also highlighted the serious due process concerns of allowing the government to arrest or prosecute individuals under a statute that had already been declared unconstitutional.
Why This Case Matters
This case is about far more than a single firearms provision.
At stake is whether the Minnesota Legislature can continue passing enormous omnibus bills packed with unrelated policies, effectively shielding controversial provisions from scrutiny.
UMLC’s lawsuit seeks to enforce the constitutional rules that govern how laws are written and passed—rules designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and honest debate in the legislative process.
UMLC continues to defend the district court’s ruling on appeal and is pursuing further relief that could invalidate the omnibus bill in its entirety.