A Minnesota Court of Appeals panel on Tuesday left the state’s mammoth 2024 omnibus law standing but yanked out one politically explosive piece. The judges ruled that the portion banning so‑called binary triggers cannot be enforced because it violated the state constitution’s single‑subject rule. They severed the trigger language from the rest of the bill, leaving the sprawling package in place and the binary‑trigger prohibition off the books for now while state officials and litigants decide whether to take the fight upstairs.
What the appeals court said
The three‑judge panel agreed with Ramsey County Judge Leonardo Castro that firearm language tucked into a 2024 tax‑and‑spending package was not germane to the bill’s title and therefore ran afoul of Minnesota’s single‑subject clause. The court leaned on precedent that tells judges to cut out an unconstitutional provision rather than scrap an entire act, even when the rest of the bill is, in their words, wildly sprawling. As reported by Star Tribune, the opinion took a dim view of the Capitol habit of stuffing unrelated policy into last‑minute megabills.
What survived and what didn’t
The appeals panel removed only the binary‑trigger amendment, a change that had redefined “trigger activator” to cover a device that fires on both the pull and the release of the trigger, and it left the rest of the 2024 act intact. The court also rejected at least one challenge to a separate section that bars state agencies from contracting with for‑profit HMOs, a provision that had drawn a lawsuit from UnitedHealth. The attorney general’s office said it is reviewing the decision and weighing its options, and Gov. Tim Walz told reporters, “Minnesota passed a ban on deadly binary triggers once and we’ll do it again,” according to MinnPost.
What comes next at the Capitol
Legal analysts say the state is likely to consider asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the appeals court’s handling of the single‑subject clause. A reversal by the high court could snap the ban back into place. Lawmakers also have a more straightforward route: refile the restriction as a standalone bill or rewrite it so it fits more cleanly under a single subject. Either move would kick the debate back to St. Paul, where the heavy reliance on jumbo omnibus packages has already drawn heat from judges and lawmakers alike, as Star Tribune has reported.
Why it matters
Beyond the immediate policy fight over a specific firearm device, the ruling reopens a bigger question about how Minnesota writes its biggest, latest‑hour bills and how aggressively courts should police that process. For now, vendors, owners and legal advocates on both sides are watching to see whether the state will appeal or lawmakers will pursue a legislative fix, a replay that would put the state’s appetite for omnibus legislation back under the microscope.
