Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
131 federal appellate · 71 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 420 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably United States v. Kokinda (1990), Lance v. Dennis (2006)
131 federal appellate · 71 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 14 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1253
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Buckley v. Valeo · Elrod v. Burns · Grayned v. City of Rockford
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 420 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Policymaking organs in our system of government have never operated under a constitutional constraint requiring them to afford every interested member of the public an opportunity to present testimony before any policy is adopted. Legislatures throughout the nation, including Congress, frequently enact bills on which no hearings have been held or on which testimony has been received from only a select group. Executive agencies likewise make policy decisions of widespread application without permitting unrestricted public testimony. Public officials at all levels of government daily make policy decisions based only on the advice they decide they need and choose to hear. To recognize a constitutional right to participate directly in government policymaking would work a revolution in existing government practices.... Government makes so many policy decisions affecting so many people that it would likely grind to a halt were policymaking constrained by constitutional requirements on whose voices must be heard.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“inherent in our system of government; it does not create an unconstitutional inhibition on associational freedom.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he First Amendment guarantees the right both to speak and to associate. Appellees' speech and associational rights, however, have not been infringed by Minnesota's restriction of participation in "meet and confer" sessions to the faculty's exclusive representative. The state has in no way restrained appellees' freedom to speak on any education-related issue or their freedom to associate or not to associate with whom they please, including the exclusive representative.... .... ... [A]ppellees' associational freedom has not been impaired. Appellees are free to form whatever advocacy groups they like. They are not required to become members of [the union], and they do not challenge the monetary contribution they are required to make to support [the union's] representation activities.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.