Judge Warns of Constitutional Overreach in Minnesota’s Sweeping 2024 Bill

A Minnesota judge has delivered a sharp rebuke to the state’s legislative process, striking down a key provision of the sprawling 2024 omnibus bill and reigniting debate over transparency and constitutional limits in lawmaking.

In a major legal victory for constitutional watchdogs and Second Amendment advocates, Ramsey County District Court Judge Leonardo Castro ruled that the provision banning “binary triggers” — a firearm component — violated Article IV, Section 17 of the Minnesota Constitution, known as the Single Subject Clause. The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed in February by the Minnesota Gun Owner’s Caucus, which challenged the rushed and wide-ranging nature of the final omnibus bill passed by Democratic lawmakers during the chaotic closing moments of the 2024 session.

The challenged provision was one of hundreds buried within the final 1,432-page bill, which spanned multiple issue areas and was pushed through the Legislature with little to no opportunity for debate or review. Lawmakers from both parties had raised concerns at the time about the lack of transparency and deliberation.

“Make no mistake, the legislature violated the constitution on the last night of the 2024 session,” said Senator Michael Kreun in a statement. “Today, Judge Castro, a Gov. Dayton appointee, invalidated one part of the 1,432-page mega-omnibus bill for violating the Single Subject Clause of the Constitution, but he came very close to striking down the entire bill.”

While Judge Castro limited his ruling to the binary trigger language — citing precedent that discourages full invalidation when only one section is challenged — his written opinion was highly critical of the Legislature’s practice of bundling unrelated issues into massive omnibus bills. In his analysis, Castro indicated that the entire package likely fails to meet constitutional muster, effectively inviting a higher court to take broader action.

“His strong language criticizing the bill certainly is inviting an appellate court to rightfully strike down the entire bill,” Kreun added. “Rolling bills on multiple subjects into one giant omnibus bill is not only unconstitutional, but they are also an affront to transparency, accountability, and good government.”

The ruling is likely to embolden critics of the legislative process in St. Paul who have long decried the use of massive omnibus bills to bypass meaningful deliberation. It also sets up a potential legal showdown at the appellate level, where broader questions about legislative procedure could come under scrutiny.

Kreun, who has positioned himself as a proponent of reform, pledged to continue pushing for a return to more responsible lawmaking. “We need to do a better job in how we legislate in Minnesota, and I am committed to being a voice for better government.”

The Minnesota Gun Owner’s Caucus, which brought the suit, celebrated the ruling as a win for constitutional integrity and promised to keep fighting against what they see as overreach by lawmakers intent on bypassing the state’s foundational legal protections.

With today’s decision, the debate over Minnesota’s legislative process — and its limits — is far from over. As legal teams weigh appeals and lawmakers prepare for the 2026 session, the court’s message is clear: when it comes to the state constitution, size and speed are no excuse for ignoring the rules.