The announcement the Cleveland Indians will discontinue its age-old logo of a cartoonish Native American character was particularly relevant and resonant here in Minnesota.
The coalescence this month of two events concerning freedom of expression owe much to Minnesota.
These various measure constitute a means of saying, in a way most appropriate at this time of the year: “Thank you for your service.”
Minnesota has played a prominent role in matters relating to the unfolding document declassification and disclosure.
One of the most notable cases on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court for its 2017-18 term, which begins next Monday, had a trial run, so to speak, here in Minnesota last week.
It’s not a major holiday — in fact, it’s not a holiday at all — but this upcoming Sunday, Sept. 17, is a noteworthy day: Constitution Day.
The unanimity of these two freedom-of-speech decisions by the Supreme Court reflects their broad acceptance across the ideological spectrum.
The liquor ban is quite different from the prudent five-decade-old prohibition on selling, or buying, vehicles on Sundays, and demise of the former does not warrant setting aside the latter.
There’s just one doubtful issue for the imminent civil lawsuit by Castile’s heirs: how many millions of dollars will be recovered from the insurance carrier for the two cities for which Yanez was working.
The law is often invoked in lawsuits as a shield by individuals and organizations that have tried to block or modify construction projects, rezoning efforts, or other developments by raising opposition in various forums.
It feels a little unseemly to follow a pay-for-placement pattern and practice at an institution of higher learning like the U.
The imbroglio at Notre Dame pales in comparison to the one that unraveled here with the championship U of M men’s basketball team in the late 1990s.