BAM, together with co-plaintiffs the Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and J & M Consulting, has filed a reply brief responding to the Minnesota Attorney General and the Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) Commissioner on our motion for summary judgment. We are asking a Minnesota state judge to strike down a new law meant to stop construction companies from misclassifying workers as independent contractors rather than employees.
We aren’t just fighting the worker law itself. We are challenging how the Legislature passed it. BAM argues that the Minnesota Legislature broke state constitutional rules by cramming dozens of completely unrelated laws into one massive, last-minute bill known as the “Jumbo Omnibus.”
Key Arguments Made by BAM
1. “You Already Lost This Argument in Court” (Offensive Collateral Estoppel)
The concept: In plain terms, this rule says that if a court already ruled against you on the exact same issue in an earlier case, you can’t come back to court and re-argue it against someone else.
The argument: Judge Castro, the judge in our case, also presided over a very similar earlier case (Minnesota Gun Owners), where the state conceded, and the court entered final judgment, that this same “Jumbo Omnibus” bill violated the state constitution’s single subject clause. The state chose not to appeal. BAM’s position: the state already conceded this mega-bill is unconstitutional once, so the state shouldn’t be allowed to pretend otherwise now.
2. “You Can’t Cram Unrelated Laws Together” (The Single Subject Rule)
The rule: The Minnesota Constitution requires every bill passed by the Legislature to embrace a single subject.
The argument: The “Jumbo Omnibus” contained at least 13 unrelated topics, including gun laws, energy policy, mineral taxes, veterinary licenses, sports, and construction labor rules. The state argued that all of these topics fit under the broad label of “running state government.” BAM counters that almost any law involves state government, so if that excuse worked, the single subject rule would be meaningless.
3. “The Bill’s Name Hid What Was Inside” (The Title Clause)
The rule: A bill’s title must give the public and lawmakers fair notice of what the law actually does.
The argument: Right before the midnight deadline, lawmakers swapped the bill’s title for a generic description about “state government operations.” No ordinary person reading that title would ever guess it contained a sweeping new law changing how construction companies must classify their workers.
4. “Don’t Delay the Injunction” (Opposition to a Stay)
The state asked the judge to delay the ruling if it loses, so it could keep enforcing the worker law during an appeal. BAM argues that this request was made improperly, without the required legal filings, and that the state shouldn’t be allowed to keep enforcing an unconstitutional law.
What BAM Is Asking the Judge to Do
- Rule in BAM’s favor without a full trial (summary judgment).
- Sever the construction worker misclassification law from the rest of the mega-bill.
- Issue an injunction stopping the state from enforcing the worker misclassification penalties.
The case: Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., et al. v. Perushek and Ellison, Ramsey County District Court, Court File No. 62-CV-26-2185 (Judge Leonardo Castro).
Oral arguments are scheduled for October 1, 2026, at the Ramsey County Courthouse. Questions? Contact Grace Keliher at (651) 646-7959 or info@mnmca.com.