Supreme Court strikes down Minnesota's voter clothing law

U.S. Court Watch

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Minnesota law that barred voters in the state from wearing a wide range of political hats,

T-shirts and pins to the polls.

Minnesota had defended its law as a reasonable restriction that keeps order at polling places and prevents voter intimidation. But the

justices ruled 7-2 that the state's law is too broad, violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "if a State wishes to set its polling places apart as areas free of partisan discord, it must employ a

more discernible approach than the one Minnesota has offered here."

Most states have laws restricting what voters can wear when they cast ballots, but Minnesota's law was one of the broadest. It barred

voters from casting a ballot while wearing clothing with the name of a candidate or political party. Also not allowed: clothing that

references an issue on the ballot or promotes a group with recognizable political views. A National Rifle Association T-shirt or shirt with

the text of the Second Amendment wouldn't be allowed, for example, according to the lawyer who argued the case for the state.

Roberts noted that Minnesota, like other states, had sought to balance a voter's ability to "engage in political discourse" with the ability

to "exercise his civic duty in a setting removed from the clamor and din of electioneering."

"While that choice is generally worthy of our respect, Minnesota has not supported its good intentions with a law capable of reasoned

application," he wrote.

It is unclear exactly how many states the ruling could affect beyond Minnesota. Both Minnesota and the group challenging the state's

law had said there are about 10 states with laws like Minnesota's, though they disagreed significantly on which ones, agreeing only on

Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Vermont.

The case before the Supreme Court dates back to 2010 and involves a dispute that began over tea party T-shirts and buttons with the

words "Please I.D. Me," a reference to legislation then under discussion in Minnesota that would have required residents to show photo

identification to vote. The legislation ultimately didn't become law.

Pointing to the state's statute, Minnesota officials said before the election that neither the tea party T-shirts nor those buttons would be

permitted at the polls. In response, a group of voters and organizations sued.

Related listings

  • Judge bars deportations of Venezuelans from South Texas

    Judge bars deportations of Venezuelans from South Texas

    U.S. Court Watch 05/07/2025

    A federal judge on Thursday barred the Trump administration from deporting any Venezuelans from South Texas under an 18th-century wartime law and said President Donald Trump’s invocation of it was “unlawful.”U.S. District Court Judg...

  • Wall Street falls for a second day ahead of Federal Reserve meeting

    Wall Street falls for a second day ahead of Federal Reserve meeting

    U.S. Court Watch 05/04/2025

    Wall Street is pointing toward losses Tuesday ahead of a two-day meeting of the Federal Reserve, which is facing the diametrically opposed challenges of potential inflation and a softening employment landscape.Futures for the S&P 500 lost 0.7% an...

  • Judge to weigh Louisiana AG’s challenge to city jail’s ‘sanctuary’ policy

    Judge to weigh Louisiana AG’s challenge to city jail’s ‘sanctuary’ policy

    U.S. Court Watch 04/22/2025

    Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill is pushing forward with her efforts to force Orleans Parish Sheriff Susan Hutson to drop a longtime policy that generally prohibits deputies from directly engaging in federal immigration enforcement within the c...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.