Judge Castro: Lawmaking “Did Not Occur Within the Framework of the Constitution”

Calls for legislative accountability in Minnesota grew louder this week after a district court struck down part of the state’s 2024 omnibus tax bill for violating the Minnesota Constitution’s single-subject clause.

The decision invalidated a portion of the sweeping package that was passed in the chaotic final hours of last year’s legislative session. Judge Leonardo Castro criticized the process in unusually strong terms, warning that lawmakers had ignored constitutional safeguards designed to protect deliberation and transparency.

Sen. Jordan Rasmusson said the ruling validated the concerns he and other lawmakers raised last spring. “In the final minutes of the 2024 legislative session, Democrats pushed through a 1,400-page omnibus bill,” Rasmusson said. “At the time, I called it a ‘shocking display of one-party control.’ The bill was pushed through without debate or time to review its contents. This is not the transparent, accountable legislating Minnesotans deserve.”

Judge Castro’s opinion underscored those concerns, declaring that the late-night passage of the bill “did not occur within the framework of the constitution.” He went further, suggesting that the legislation represented an example where “all bounds of reason and restraint seem to have been abandoned” and noting that if there were ever a time for the “draconian result of invalidating the entire law,” it would be in this case.

While the court stopped short of striking down the full measure, the language leaves the door open for higher courts to take broader action should appeals move forward.

Republican leaders had warned of this possibility even before the governor signed the bill into law. On May 22, 2024, just days after its passage, minority leaders sent a letter urging Governor Tim Walz to veto the bill. They cautioned that approving the package would endorse a process “that will have serious consequences for both chambers for years to come.”

Rasmusson said the court’s decision is proof of why Minnesota’s single-subject requirement exists and urged lawmakers to take the ruling as a warning. “We need to put Minnesotans first in all our legislative decisions, not block their elected representatives from debating key policy issues. Legislators should heed the court’s warning on unconstitutional bills.”

The case adds new momentum to ongoing debates about the use of massive omnibus legislation in St. Paul. Critics argue that such bills short-circuit democratic debate and limit accountability, while defenders say they are a practical way to wrap up complicated sessions. With the court’s rebuke now on record, however, the controversy is unlikely to fade.