Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Garland. Plaintiffs' challenge is rejected. Statute against all of the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges are upheld.

District Court of Minnesota Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court denies Plaintiffs‟ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Because the Court considered only Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate, the Court directs the parties to contact the Chambers of Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron to proceed with a Rule 16 scheduling conference. 

In this action, Plaintiffs challenge several Minnesota statutes that relate to campaign finance and disclosure. Plaintiffs allege that the challenged statutes— CASE 0:10-cv-02938-DWF-JSM Document 102 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 8 2 Minnesota Statute § 10A.12, subds. 1 and 1a, § 10A.01, subd. 18, § 10A.27, subd. 13, and § 211B.15, subds. 2, 3, and 4—are unconstitutional because they violate both the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek both a declaratory judgment that the challenged statutes are unconstitutional and an injunction enjoining enforcement of the challenged statutes. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 20, 2010 (the “September 2010 Order”), this Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. No. 59.) In the September 2010 Order, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on all counts and that the remaining Dataphase factors would likely weigh in Defendants’ favor. 

Opinion made by Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Melloy. The district court denied the motion, and Minnesota Citizens appealed this denial. The Eighth Circuit Court affirms.

En Banc for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Decision and order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’second Motion for Preliminary Injunction and temporary restraining order.

Judge R. Brooke Jackson's final judgment and order, entered on October 22, 2014.

It is ordered that: 1. The trial date of July 7, 2009 is vacated; 2. Count three of the indictment is dismissed without prejudice; and 3. Any outstanding bond is exonerated.

Case is restored to the calendar for reargument. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: For the proper disposition of this case, should the Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), and the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U.S.C. §441b? 

District Court grants intervention.