Supreme Court declines to take up challenge to Minnesota's ban on captive audience meetings

Attorney General Ellison successfully defends pro-worker, pro-union law

February 23, 2026 (SAINT PAUL) — Attorney General Keith Ellison announced today that the United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to Minnesota’s ban on captive audience meetings, leaving in place the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissing the lawsuit.   

Minnesota’s law, passed during the 2023 legislative session, protects employees from retaliation if they decline to attend employer-sponsored meetings intended to promote the employer’s political or religious views, or views on union organizing. The law does not restrict employers’ ability to speak. It ensures that employees cannot be punished for choosing not to listen. 

On September 3, 2025, in a 2-1 ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed a challenge to Minnesota’s captive audience meeting ban. Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for review. Today, the Court rejected the Plaintiffs’ petition.

“Every worker deserves the freedom to make their own decisions about politics and religion without fear of losing their job,” said Attorney General Ellison. “This law protects workers from retaliation if they choose not to attend meetings where those topics are pushed on them. It also gives workers the power to stand up for themselves in court if their rights are violated. When a lawsuit was filed challenging Minnesota’s ban on captive audience meetings, we got to work defending this pro-worker law. We succeeded in getting the lawsuit dismissed at the Court of Appeals, and today, the Supreme Court has decided to leave that dismissal in place. Minnesota’s ban on captive audience meetings remains the law of the land. This is a great day for workers across our state.”

With the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari, the litigation has concluded and Minnesota’s statute remains enforceable. Employees who believe they have been retaliated against may bring a civil action in court to seek appropriate remedies.