Gag Orders in Minnesota Criminal Cases: Who a Court Can Silence, and Why

What happened in the Boelter case

Boelter faces state charges in Hennepin County arising from the June 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators and their families. He has pleaded not guilty to the state charges. The state trial is set for November 2, though the defense has since asked the court to postpone it. Separately, he pleaded guilty in federal court and was sentenced to life in federal prison.

On September 28, his defense asked the court to bar potential witnesses, including surviving victims, from speaking publicly about the case, arguing their comments could taint the jury pool. Prosecutors did not object, but asked that any order also cover the attorneys, the parties, jurors, court staff, Boelter himself, and anyone posting publicly on his behalf. The surviving victims have objected publicly, arguing that victims shouldn't be silenced for speaking truthfully about their own experience.

What the court ordered

After a hearing on September 30, Hennepin County Judge Juan Hoyos issued a temporary gag order. As reported, it bars Boelter, all attorneys, witnesses and potential witnesses, and court employees from speaking publicly about the case. It also reaches the attorneys' employees, agents, and independent contractors. That covers the surviving victims, who are potential witnesses.

The order is temporary by design. Prosecutors asked for an interim order to stop public statements while both sides could fully argue the question, and it runs at least until the next hearing, set for Monday, October 5. The judge has said he expects to take up several motions then, including whether to make the order permanent, and the defense's request to delay the trial.

Two questions are still open. The defense originally asked for an order lasting until a verdict, and it isn't yet clear how long any final order will run. Prosecutors also asked that an order reach statements already written but not yet published, an apparent reference to the posts made on Boelter's behalf while he's been in custody. Reporting so far doesn't say whether the temporary order covers that.

We aren't involved in the case and won't comment on its merits. But the questions it raises come up in ordinary criminal cases too, so they're worth explaining.

Where the power to issue a gag order comes from

People often assume a gag order comes from a specific rule. In Minnesota, it mostly doesn't. Rule 25 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure deals with prejudicial publicity, but the part of it titled "Restrictive Orders," Rule 25.03, governs only restrictions on public access to court records. It doesn't address what trial participants may say.

Orders limiting what participants say come from a trial court's inherent authority to protect a fair trial, shaped by a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases. The Court has held that judges have a duty to protect trials from prejudicial publicity, Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966); that orders gagging the press itself face an extremely high bar, Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976); and that lawyers' out-of-court statements can be restricted when they carry a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the proceeding, Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991).

That last standard is also built into the rules lawyers practice under. Minnesota's version of Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct limits what a lawyer involved in a case may say publicly about it. Lawyers are bound by that rule whether or not a judge issues an order.

Who a court can restrict

The further someone is from the courtroom, the harder it is to restrict their speech.

• The lawyers. The easiest case. They're officers of the court, already bound by professional rules on trial publicity.
• The defendant. Common, especially when the defendant has been speaking publicly. A defendant's own statements can also become evidence, which gives the court a separate reason to care.
• Witnesses. Possible, but harder. Witnesses aren't parties and haven't chosen to be in the case.
• Victims. The hardest case. Victims didn't choose to be there either, and restricting a person from describing what was done to them sits uneasily with free speech. That's the tension the Boelter case puts in plain view.
• The press. Almost never. An order telling the media what it may publish is a prior restraint, the most disfavored form of speech restriction in American law.

What a court has to weigh

A judge considering a gag order is balancing two constitutional commitments: the defendant's right to a fair trial before an impartial jury, and the free speech of everyone else. Courts generally expect a gag order to be narrow, aimed at a real risk rather than a theoretical one, and justified because less restrictive options won't work.

Those other options matter, and Rule 25 lists some of them. A court can postpone a trial until publicity fades, or move it to another county. It can question potential jurors closely about what they've already heard and excuse those who can't set it aside, and it can instruct seated jurors to avoid coverage. A gag order is one tool among several, and usually not the first one a court reaches for.

What this means if you're the one charged

Most criminal cases never draw a gag order, because most never draw press coverage. But the principle behind them applies to everyone: what you say about your own case, publicly or privately, can be used against you.

That includes social media posts, text messages, comments to friends, and anything said to the person who made the accusation. A post meant to tell your side can end up as an exhibit. A message to an alleged victim can violate a no-contact order and lead to a new charge. Even statements you believe help you can be quoted selectively.

The safest rule is simple: don't discuss your case with anyone except your lawyer, and don't post about it at all. If you're under a gag order or a no-contact order, read it closely, and ask your lawyer before saying anything you're unsure about. Violating a court order can be punished as contempt.

Key Terms

Gag order

A court order limiting what people involved in a case may say about it publicly.

Prior restraint

A government restriction on speech before it happens, rather than a penalty afterward. Courts treat it as the most serious kind of speech restriction.

Change of venue

Moving a trial to a different county, often because local publicity has made it hard to seat an impartial jury.

Contempt of court

Disobeying a court order or disrupting proceedings, which a court can punish.