First Amendment &
privacy litigation

The issue may arise from an interview, a social media post, a business disagreement or the public discussion of a personal experience. Before responding to a demand or lawsuit, it is important to identify the precise statement, the full surrounding exchange and the relief the other party seeks.

The label placed on a claim does not answer every constitutional question. A careful analysis considers both the elements of the asserted claim and the protections that may apply to the speech.

A defamation claim generally concerns allegedly false statements that harm reputation. A privacy claim can raise different issues, including a dispute over disclosure of information asserted to be private. The analysis depends on the particular cause of action, the governing law and the facts; truth alone does not resolve every kind of privacy claim.

We assess the content, audience, context, available evidence and applicable defenses before recommending a response. That includes considering Minnesota’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statute, which addresses certain civil claims arising from public participation, including specified communications in government proceedings and the exercise of constitutional rights on matters of public concern. Whether the statute applies depends on the claim, its statutory exceptions and the court in which the case is pending.

The analysis starts with the original recording or publication, the full context, the parties’ communications and the procedural record. We examine the asserted claims, the available defenses and the issues that may be resolved early.

Potential next steps may include responding to a demand, evaluating an early motion or preparing to litigate disputed facts. The appropriate course depends on the claim and the client’s objectives.

MJB Law secured dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Haley Kalil in Kalil v. Kalil, a landmark Minnesota privacy and social-media case. Matthew Bialick and Karl Johnson represented Haley; Matthew’s work included briefing and oral argument on the defense motion.

On September 17, 2026, the federal court held that Haley’s remarks concerned a matter of legitimate public concern under Minnesota law. It dismissed both the privacy and unjust-enrichment claims on the merits. The court expressly did not reach the separate First Amendment argument. Read the decision and case summary.

Matthew represented Minneapolis Public Schools and individual school officials in J.K. v. Minneapolis Public Schools, a federal constitutional case involving a student’s proposed school transfer. On July 29, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the student’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the transfer. The decision addressed claims involving education, interscholastic athletics and reputation. Read the court’s decision →

MinnPost covered the litigation and the district’s student-transfer policy in an August 24, 2011 article.

Preserve the original material and the context around it. Avoid editing or deleting potentially relevant records while you seek advice. A new public response can create additional facts and legal issues, so have the proposed response reviewed where possible.

Read responding to a legal threat about a publication.

Out-of-state law firms can also engage MJB as Minnesota local counsel in disputes involving public statements, publication, privacy claims and asserted First Amendment defenses. We can work alongside lead counsel or discuss taking responsibility for the Minnesota litigation.

Contact Matthew with the names of the parties, a brief description of the issue and any pending deadline. The firm will assess the subject matter, jurisdiction and conflicts before agreeing to a representation.

Matthew BialickLitigation