The Minnesota Supreme Court held as unconstitutional a portion of the disorderly conduct statute related to disturbing lawful assemblies or meetings, but did not rule on other portions of the statute.
The Court ruled in the case of Robin Hensel, who was charged with disorderly conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.72, Subd. 1(2). Ms. Hensel attended a Little Falls City Council meeting, sat in the front row and displayed large signs depicting dead and deformed kids, which obstructed the views of others. As a result, the meeting was canceled and rescheduled. At the next City Council meeting, Ms. Hensel did not sit in the public gallery but rather took a chair and sat in the space between the council members on a raised dais in the front and the public gallery in the back. Ms. Hensel was warned she would be cited if she did not move. Upon her refusal to move, a police officer cited her for misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
The Court found that the part of the statute related to disturbing assemblies or meeting was substantially overbroad and could not reasonably be narrowly construed. In other words, the statute was considered too far-reaching because it criminalized forms of free speech. For example, Justice David Stras, in writing for the majority, noted that the statute could prohibit one from wearing a jacket containing an offensive inscription. Additionally, the statute criminalized the content of speech, and not just conduct, so the statute as written could not be narrowly tailored and had to be invalidated.
In light of this decision, the Minnesota Legislature is expected to take up the issue of how to rework this portion of the disorderly conduct statute.