The Supreme Court dismissed a failed Minnesota state Senate candidate’s challenge to rulings that he used to falsely imply he had the support of the Republican Party during his 2022 campaign.
The Minnesota Republican Party and the state’s Democratic attorney general insisted that Nathan Miller’s First Amendment challenge was riddled with errors and that the issue was too narrow to merit the Supreme Court’s attention.
Miller ran as a candidate for the Minnesota Senate’s 9th District in 2022 after unsuccessfully seeking the endorsement of the state Republican Party.
Ahead of Election Day, the party filed a complaint against Miller for reposting a flyer on his campaign website that promoted his appearance at an October political rally hosted by a group called the Caravan of Patriots .
“SD 9 – Republican Party” appeared under Miller’s name and the courts agreed it violated Minnesota law, which prohibits knowingly false claims that a candidate has the support of a political party.
Miller — a self-described Republican who claims the statement is true — asked the Supreme Court to take up his First Amendment challenge after the Minnesota Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
“When campaigning, candidates seek to reach the electorate and educate the public about their political beliefs, which may be consistent with the political philosophies of other national parties,” Miller’s attorney wrote in the petition.
“But many of these candidates have no support from state parties,” they continued. “Candidates must not face or fear prosecution – civil or criminal – for their truthful speech to the electorate, even if the parties do not like it.”
Both the Republican Party of Minnesota and Keith Ellison, the state’s Democratic attorney general and former vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, called on the Supreme Court to stay out of the case.
“In addition to changing his legal theories, he appears to want to try a completely different case on appeal,” the state wrote in court filings.
The party noted that the law only covers false claims of party support – but not other false campaign speeches – and that Miller only identified four cases covered by the law.
“The petition is dominated by the enormous gap between plaintiffs’ characterization of this case and the reality of the facts and relevant case law,” the party wrote in court filings.
