In 2023, Minnesota enacted the “Employer-Sponsored Meetings of Communications Act” (the “Act”), Minn. Stat. § 181.531. The Act prohibits employers from taking adverse employment action against any employee who refuses to participate in meetings where the employer discusses its opinion on political and religious matters.
The Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (MNABC) and other trade associations sued Attorney General Keith Ellison, Governor Tim Walz, and Department of Labor and Industry Commissioner Nicole Blissenbach (collectively, “Defendants”) seeking to enjoy enforcement of the Act. Defendants asserted state sovereign immunity and move for a dismissal. The district court denied the motion and Defendants appealed.
On September 3, 2025, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that states are immune from suit under the terms of the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity, reversing the lower court’s decision. The Court determined that there exists a limited exception that permits plaintiffs to seek judicial orders in federal court to prevent state executive officials from enforcing state laws that may conflict with federal law. However, the Court clarified that this exception is not applicable in situations where the state official in question has neither a direct connection to the enforcement of the challenged statute nor has made any threats to commence enforcement proceedings. In this case, because Defendants had no role in enforcing the law and did not indicate any intention to do so, this limited exception did not apply.
Three Judge Pannel Rejects Petition for Rehearing
On November 3, 2025, a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a concise, single-line order denying the Plaintiffs’ request for both en banc and panel rehearing. This decision allows the prior ruling from September 3rd, 2025, to remain in effect, and no further review will be conducted by either the full court or the original panel regarding this matter.
By allowing the decision stand, the 8th Circuit agreed with the State of Minnesota that the initial 8th Circuit panel correctly rejected the challenge to Minn. Stat. § 181.531. Specifically, the 8th Circuit agreed that Plaintiffs lacked standing because none of the Defendants would enforce the law at issue. Furthermore, the lack of any credible threat of enforcement from Defendants further hurt Plaintiff’s standing argument.
Anticipated Legal Challenges and Regulatory Updates
Although the issue of federal preemption has been resolved for the time being, it is highly likely that additional trade associations will pursue legal challenges to the Act, particularly once the statute is actively enforced. Employers are encouraged to closely monitor any new lawsuits or legal actions that may arise contesting this law, as the legal landscape will continue to evolve.
In addition to tracking litigation, employers should remain attentive to updates and guidance from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). It is important to note, however, that the NLRB is currently without quorum and therefore unable to issue decisions at this time. That stated, the Acting General Counsel of the NLRB and the NLRB Regional Directors continue to enforce the law and exercise prosecutorial discretion as to many issues in the administration of the National Labor Relations Act. [1] Staying informed about any changes or developments from the NLRB remains prudent for employers navigating compliance with labor laws.
[1] As of this writing, the NLRB remains effectively closed due to a lapse of funding.
[View source.]
