Yesterday, I had a front-row seat in Ramsey County District Court for a hearing that felt less like a routine administrative challenge and more like a pivotal moment for Minnesota constitutional law.
At the center of the case is the massive, 1,425-page “Jumbo” Omnibus bill passed by the Minnesota Legislature—and whether the way it became law violates the Minnesota Constitution’s Single Subject and Single Title Clause.
Presiding over the hearing was Judge Leonardo Castro, who was already intimately familiar with this legislative process. In 2025, Judge Castro struck down the binary trigger ban hidden inside the same 2024 omnibus bill on identical single-subject grounds—a ruling that was upheld by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Yesterday’s proceeding made one thing abundantly clear: Judge Castro’s frustration with the Legislature’s procedural shortcuts has only grown.
1. The Plaintiffs’ Argument: “The Best Example of Log-Rolling in History”
The courtroom featured a heavy-hitting legal lineup representing business and policy groups:
Jack Perry (Taft Law), representing F&H, led off by asking the court to strike down the Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) provisions or invalidate the bill in its entirety. Perry anchored his oral argument in history, charting a timeline of single-subject cases back to the Minnesota Supreme Court’s 1919 decision in State v. Women’s and Children’s Hospital, in which the court voided an entire legislative act. Perry tracked the Jumbo Omnibus bill legislative journey, noting that it reached the House floor styled simply as a bill “relating to taxes,” completely concealing the eight other omnibus bills crammed into the 1,425-page conference report. The title was only altered by the Revisor of Statutes after the Legislature had already adjourned.
Nick Nelson (Upper Midwest Law Center), appearing with Doug Seaton, pushed on the notice issue. He emphasized that the state judiciary is the only institution left to protect citizens from unconstitutional legislative overreach. When asked by Judge Castro whether a bill’s title is required to appear at the very beginning, Nelson noted that a title’s position at the top is fundamentally implied—and that using catch-all titles like “State Government Operations and Finance” to connect all the omnibus bills together in the Jumbo Omnibus bill strips the constitutional single subject/single title clause of all real meaning.
Tom Revnew, representing BAM (Builders Association of Minnesota), ABC (Associated Builders and Contractors), NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business), and J&M Consulting, focused on the Misclassification provision. Revnew pulled no punches, labeling the bill “the best example of ‘log-rolling’ in history.” He pointed out that the AG’s office had said during the earlier Gun Owners case that it would appeal single-subject rulings all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Instead, the State did not seek Supreme Court review of the Court of Appeals’ ruling, and the time to do so has now passed, so the decision stands—and the 43 words banning binary triggers remain severed and struck down.
2. The Attorney General’s Defense: Strategic Decisions and Resource Limits
Assistant Attorney General Emily Anderson defended the statute on behalf of the State. Her position relied on several key arguments:
- Procedural Correction: She pointed out that the updated, descriptive title appeared on page 1,425 and that the 4th draft sent by the Revisor to the Governor contained the finalized title.
- Timing & Remedy: The State argued that the plaintiffs waited too long to bring their challenge (a point Tom Revnew later rebutted by arguing that Minnesota’s six-year limitations period applies). She urged that if the court found fault, it should sever only specific provisions rather than taking down the entire bill—warning that striking the entire act would be “astronomically hurtful to the public.”
- The “Common Thread”: The State maintained that “State Government Operations and Finance” served as the unifying constitutional bridge connecting all policy areas in the bill.
3. Judge Castro’s Questions and “Enlightenment”
Judge Castro did not hold back during questioning. He made his skepticism of the Legislature’s tactics plain, at one point commenting directly that the Legislature “should be ashamed of their actions” in ignoring the single-subject and single-title rules.
Key moments from the bench:
- On Notice: Judge Castro pressed Assistant Attorney General Anderson on why the title wasn’t corrected before the House and Senate voted, asking why the Legislature seemed so intent on withholding transparent notice from the public and rank-and-file lawmakers.
- On Legislative Secrecy: The judge voiced sheer frustration over how a bill could possibly be deemed constitutional when, in reality, only the six conference committee members truly knew everything that was packed inside it.
- On Watching the Vote: Judge Castro shared that he had watched the video recordings of the House and Senate passing the bill, describing the process as “like watching sausage being made.”
- On the AG’s Appeal Strategy: In a striking moment during the hearing, Judge Castro asked the AG’s office directly why they chose not to take the earlier Gun Owners decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. He noted that had they pursued that appeal, the state would have definitive guidance today rather than re-litigating the exact same single-subject arguments. Anderson responded that the choice was a “strategic decision” driven by agency resources (a point that drew quiet reactions in the room, given the AG office’s staff of more than 400 employees). Anderson added that the State lost only 43 words out of a 1,425-page bill, so in the State’s view it was not a big deal, and the State will let the Gun Owners decision stand.
- On Meaningless Titles: When the AG argued that State Government Operations and Finance tied everything together, Judge Castro asked whether a title has any remaining constitutional meaning if it can stretch far enough to cover everything from K-12 education policy to energy standards.
What Happens Next?
The State concluded by requesting a stay of any adverse ruling pending appeal. As we await Judge Castro’s formal decision, the shadow of his previous ruling hangs heavily over this case. In his 2025 opinion in the Gun Owners case, Judge Castro wrote:
“Out of respect and deference for Minnesota Supreme Court precedent favoring severance wherever possible, this Court will go no further than severing the Binary Trigger Amendment from the 2024 Omnibus Bill. But make no mistake, during the late hours of May 19, 2024, lawmaking did not ‘occur within the framework of the constitution.’ 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.”
Whether Judge Castro decides that “that time is now” to strike down the entire 1,425-page megabill—or once again sever provisions like PFML and worker misclassification piece-by-piece—this hearing made one thing clear: Minnesota’s long-standing reliance on omnibus log-rolling is facing its most serious constitutional reckoning in generations.