Judge questions legality of 2024 tax omnibus bill in binary trigger ruling

(FOX 9) - A Minnesota judge is questioning the constitutionality of a 1,400-page tax omnibus bill passed in 2024 as he struck down a ban on binary triggers that was included in the package of laws.

Lawsuit over binary triggers

The backstory:

A ban on binary triggers went to lawmakers in the aftermath of the killing of three Burnsville first responders in February 2024. The gunman who fired on first responders used several guns, including one that had a binary trigger. Binary triggers are devices that can be attached to guns to increase the firing rate.

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus brought the lawsuit earlier this year, arguing the ban, which was included in a tax omnibus bill, broke the state's single subject rule and title clause.

Dig deeper:

The constitution forbids lawmakers from grouping several different subjects into one law and requires the title of the law to match the subject of the bill. The lawsuit argued that by including a ban on binary triggers in a bill on taxes, lawmakers violated those provisions in the state constitution.

"The Minnesota Legislature ignored the clear directive of the Minnesota Constitution and logrolled dozens of unrelated provisions into the same Frankenstein’s monster of an omnibus tax bill," attorneys argued.

The other side:

Attorney General Keith Ellison's office, which was a defendant in the lawsuit, argued the single-subject clause was intended to prevent fraudulent legislation from being lumped into unrelated bills. The clause was not intended to "prevent comprehensive legislation." The office also argues that enforcement of the single-subject clause is under the purview of the legislature – not the judicial branch.

Citing lawsuits dating back to the 19th century, the AG's office argued: "Those early decisions recognized that strict enforcement of the single-subject clause would interfere with the legislative process, create uncertainty about huge swathes of law, and not afford proper respect to a coordinate branch of government."

The attorney general's office pointed out that the binary trigger law saw hearings and debate in both chambers and a version of the bill was even passed by the Minnesota House.

Judge's ruling questions omnibus bill

Big picture view:

In his ruling, Judge Leonardo Castro issued a blistering rebuke of the 2024 tax bill, siding with the gun owner's caucus.

In the decision, the judge suggested the entire omnibus bill deserved to be thrown out.

Judge's order:

The judge, however, followed the precedent set by the Supreme Court and removed the disputed amendment on binary triggers, rather than trash the whole law.

The decision reads: "In this case, severance of the challenged portion alone will not bring the 2024 Omnibus Bill into constitutional compliance, not even close. Instead, that burden will be shifted to the people and businesses of Minnesota who will be forced to bring hundreds of lawsuits over the next few years before the statute of limitations expires to hack off, piece by piece, its many offending portions."

"This Court respectfully suggests that if there has ever been a bill without a common theme and where ‘all bounds of reason and restraint seem to have been abandoned,’ this is it; and if there has ever been a time for the ‘draconian result of invalidating the entire law,’ that time is now," Judge Castro adds.

Reaction to the ruling

What they're saying:

In a statement, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus celebrated the judge's decision.

"The State has repeatedly tried to bury gun control provisions inside sprawling omnibus bills. Today’s ruling makes clear that this practice violates the Minnesota Constitution, " said Rob Doar, Senior Vice President of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, in a provided statement. "If lawmakers attempt to cram anti-gun measures into omnibus bills in the future, we will challenge them in court again—and our track record of victories should give them pause."

Rep. Paul Novotny (R-Elk River) also responded to the decision by criticizing the "mega bill." His statement reads: "The court confirmed today what many of us warned about from the start: this was a bad policy, shoved into a bad bill, using a bad process. In the final minutes of session, instead of allowing full debate on individual policies, the majority crammed more than 1,400 pages covering nearly every corner of government into one ‘mega-bill’ and rushed it through both chambers late at night. That’s not transparency, that’s logrolling — and it’s exactly what our Constitution was written to prevent."

What's next:

It's not clear if the state will appeal Judge Castro's order. It's also not clear if other aspects of the omnibus bill are being challenged in court.