The Supreme Court turned away a failed Minnesota state Senate candidate’s challenge to rulings that he falsely implied to have the Republican Party’s support during his 2022 write-in campaign. 

The Republican Party of Minnesota and the state’s Democratic attorney general insisted Nathan Miller’s First Amendment appeal was riddled with errors and the issue was too narrow to merit the high court’s attention. 

Miller ran as a write-in candidate for the Minnesota Senate’s 9th District in 2022 after unsuccessfully seeking the state GOP’s endorsement.

In the lead-up to Election Day, the party filed a complaint against Miller for reposting on his campaign website a flyer that advertised his appearance at an October political rally hosted by a group called “Caravan of Patriots.”  

“SD 9 – Republican Party” appeared under Miller’s name, and courts agreed that it violated Minnesota’s law prohibiting knowingly false claims that a candidate has a political party’s support. 

Miller — a self-proclaimed Republican who claims the statement was truthful — petitioned the Supreme Court to take up his First Amendment challenge after Minnesota’s high court refused to hear the case. 

“During campaigns, candidates seek to reach the electorate and educate the public as to their political beliefs that may align with political philosophies of other national parties,” Miller’s attorney wrote in the petition. 

“But many of these candidates do not have endorsements of state parties,” they continued. “Candidates cannot be faced with, nor should they fear, the threat of prosecution—civil or criminal—because of their truthful speech to the electorate, even if state parties do not like it.” 

Both the Republican Party of Minnesota and Keith Ellison, the state’s Democratic attorney general and former deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee, told the Supreme Court to stay out of the case. 

“In addition to altering his legal theories, he appears to want to litigate an entirely different case on appeal,” the state wrote in court filings. 

The party noted the statute narrowly covers false claims of having a party’s support — but not other false campaign speech — and that Miller had only identified four cases brought under the law. 

“The Petition is dominated by the enormous chasm between Petitioners’ characterizations of this case and the reality of the factual record and the relevant case law,” the party wrote in court filings.