Over 50 lawmakers from Minnesota reached out to Governor Tim Walz on September 30, asking him to take action concerning a state employee.

This request followed a post from an employee of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, who wrote on Facebook, “Too bad they weren’t a better shot” after the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump on July 13.

On July 26, several lawmakers had previously urged Walz to address the employee’s comments, but they claim they have yet to receive a response. The recent letter reiterates their demand for action.

“Your inaction as Governor is concerning, especially considering the rising public outcry for an end to political violence,” the letter states. “By ignoring this issue, you are neglecting the needs of Minnesotans who desire a peaceful political dialogue free from the threat of violence.”

The Minnesota DNR previously condemned the employee’s remark on social media, describing it as “reprehensible and inconsistent with (the DNR’s) views and values.” They also noted that the Minnesota Data Practices Act restricts the agency from providing further comments on the case.

A representative from Walz’s office directed inquiries from the St. Cloud Times, part of the YSL News Network, to the DNR, which confirmed they are currently looking into the employee’s post.

Legislators have expressed concerns about the potential implications this could have for public employees, especially considering the recent instances of political violence.

“Minnesotans expect state employees, who are funded by taxpayers, to maintain a standard of behavior that is respectful and peaceful, regardless of individual political beliefs,” stated Minnesota state Senator Steve Drazkowski, a Republican. “Allowing public employees to openly support or celebrate political violence sets a dangerous precedent that undermines civic dialogue.”

“Political violence has no place in our state or country and should not be accepted,” remarked Republican state Representative Bernie Perryman. “Minnesotans have the right to engage in political discussions freely, without fearing violence, yet the governor’s inaction betrays that foundational principle of our democracy.”

Possible legal considerations

Since the DNR is a public agency and not a private business, University of Minnesota law professor Charlotte Garden, J.D., informed the St. Cloud Times that there are additional legal considerations regarding disciplinary actions.

“We need to consider the First Amendment, as this involves a public employer, and the First Amendment does not apply to private employers,” Garden explained. “Private employers face fewer limitations if they choose to terminate an employee for something they said at work.”

Garden drew a parallel to the 1987 Rankin v. McPherson case, where a Texas county employee commented, “if they go for him again, I hope they get him,” after a failed assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan. A colleague overheard this remark and reported it, leading to the employee’s dismissal.

The Supreme Court determined that while direct threats to an individual’s life do not qualify as protected speech, comments addressing public interest made by employees without policymaking duties and which do not disrupt public interaction are protected under the First Amendment.

Garden noted that this case, like the one in 1987, involves two key questions: whether the comment pertains to a public issue and if it affects the department’s functionality.

In the earlier ruling related to the Reagan assassination attempt, the court viewed the remark as a comment on a matter of public interest. However, Garden mentioned that the impact of such comments on the operation of the DNR in this case could differ based on specific circumstances.

“Sometimes an employee’s statement can genuinely hinder the effective functioning of a public employer,” Garden added. “A critical point for the court would be whether the comment undermines public trust in the agency.”

Regardless of these potential legal factors, signatories of the letter assert that there are still measures Walz can undertake.

“There is nothing prohibiting the Governor of Minnesota from demanding an employee’s resignation, condemning an employee’s behavior or performance, or otherwise commenting on the actions of state employees,” the letter states.