What are Minnesota’s rules for placing religious or political displays in the State Capitol?
Executive summary
Minnesota’s rules for placing religious or political displays in the State Capitol are governed by a permit process managed by the Minnesota Department of Administration, which reserves specific spaces (notably the East Hall) for unattended displays and requires applicants to follow published rules about safety, attachments to state property, and content restrictions such as a prohibition on advertising [1] [2] [3]. Constitutional limits — chiefly the First Amendment and courts’ requirement that government treatment be neutral toward religion and political speech — frame how those administrative rules are applied, which is why the Department approved competing holiday displays including a nativity scene and a Satanist exhibit after the group obtained a permit [4] [5] [6].
1. How the process works: permits, reservations and designated spaces
Requests to place displays inside the Capitol begin with the Capitol Space Reservation system and a Capitol Event Permit; the Department of Administration emails applicants the application and confirms a reservation only after a signed and approved permit is issued, and the East Hall on the ground floor is explicitly designated for unattended displays [7] [2] [3]. The Administration’s online guidance notes that after an online space reservation applicants receive a permit application and that no public event permit is approved until the applicant receives a signed and approved application from the State of Minnesota [2] [7].
2. What can and cannot be displayed: substance, safety and advertising rules
Administrative rules and the reservation form make clear that exhibits cannot constitute advertising, cannot impede normal business operations or create safety concerns, and may not be attached to or supported by state property such as walls, pillars, steps, trees, light poles or other items inside the building or on Capitol grounds [1]. Specific prohibitions also include drones and certain items (model aircraft/UAS), balloons, stickers and the use of tape on state property — all spelled out in the Capitol Space Reservation guidance as operational constraints on exhibits [1].
3. Legal guardrails: neutrality, the First Amendment and state statute
Because the Capitol is state property, the Department applies a neutral, content‑neutral permitting regime to avoid government endorsement or discrimination against viewpoints; legal observers note that if the government allows one religious display it must allow others under the First Amendment so long as rules are applied uniformly and neutrally (Jane Kirtley, quoted) [4]. The state’s statutes also define “public areas of the State Capitol” such as the rotunda and public corridors, which are the zones covered by rules and where permanent or commemorative installations are regulated by statute [8].
4. How that plays out in practice: the Satanist display case
The practical effect of those rules was visible when the Minnesota Satanists (Cerberus Ministries) applied for and were issued a permit for a holiday display in East Hall; the Department of Administration approved the “Holiday Display,” and the display was set to run through a specified permit period, alongside other approved displays like a nativity scene — illustrating the neutral application of the permitting process [4] [6] [5]. The governor’s office publicly disclaimed personal support but noted it does not “police speech in the State Capitol,” a position tied directly to First Amendment constraints [9] [10].
5. Political friction and potential policy responses
The permit decision predictably provoked political backlash from some elected officials who argued the display was offensive and urged policy changes, with calls ranging from protests to suggestions that the state should ban religious displays altogether — a response critics warn could itself raise constitutional problems if the state sought to remove protected expression rather than enforce neutral rules (Rep. Ben Davis and other lawmakers quoted) [11] [9]. News coverage captures both the outrage and the legal framing: critics emphasize offense and governance, while officials and legal experts emphasize constitutional limits and neutral processes [9] [12].
6. Limits of the public record and what remains unclear
The available reporting and the state’s published reservation pages document the permit process, the East Hall designation for unattended displays, advertising and safety prohibitions, and that the Department approved the specific permit at issue [1] [2] [4] [6], but the public material summarized here does not provide the full text of the Department’s internal checklist, the exact timeline of reviews, or any administrative appeals the permit decision may have triggered; those details are not in the cited reporting and would require direct records requests to the Department of Administration to confirm [7] [1].