Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue

The 1983 Minnesota Star decision alerted states that taxation policies must treat the press very carefully. The case further validated the special institutional role of the press in American society. Through the 1980s, state courts strictly applied the Minnesota Star decision to a number of cases, creating problems with various states' revenue raising efforts. Two other Supreme Court cases involving state taxation of the media followed Minnesota Star. Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland (1987) and Leathers v. Medlock (1991) focused on taxes imposed on the media in Arkansas. In the Medlock case, the Court developed a three-part test to judge cases involving differential taxation of the news media. The test incorporated the Minnesota Star finding that a tax must be applied equally to all. The other two parts question if a tax is inappropriately based on the subject matter of the particular news media and if the tax is targeted at only a small group of the media. If a tax scheme initially fails any of the three parts, then the tax legislation must be subjected to close scrutiny to determine if it poses an intolerable threat of state censorship.

Many defenders of press freedom worried, however, that the scope and impact of Minnesota Star was greatly reduced by Medlock. The latter decision reemphasized the primary concern over censorship motives by holding that differential taxes must be shown to actually pose a significant danger of censorship. The Court found that differential taxation involving the news media does not alone implicate the First Amendment violation. As a result, a Court test for violation of the First Amendment became increasingly stringent again. To many, the Medlock decision significantly detracted from the gains in freedom of the press protection offered by Minnesota Star by giving states greater control over regulation of the news media.

The Minnesota Star decision also established precedence for deliberating cases involving cable television as mass media technologies evolved through the 1980s. Issues regarding differential treatment of the various forms of communications media, such as traditional print media, broadcast media, and cable media were raised. Application of the First Amendment Press Clause to restrictions placed on these various forms of communication continued to be an issue through the 1990s, as demonstrated in Turner Broadcasting System v. Federal Communications Commission.

In conformance with Rehnquist's dissenting opinion in the Minnesota Star case, some believe the courts should concentrate on infringements of a more substantial and direct nature. They believe "incidental burdens" on fundamental constitutional rights are contained in most state and federal legislation. Therefore, the court system could become excessively mired in less meaningful cases. As a result, the politically conservative Supreme Court began developing more stringent limiting principles in the 1990s, such as the Medlock test. These decisions serve to limit the Court's role in state and federal legislative review.

Tax systems are a primary means states have to regulate business, raise revenue, and provide special support to particular industries important to their region. Consequently, the Court has held that states are fairly free to tax as they see fit. As established by Minnesota Star, state tax schemes will normally not be challenged unless they treat the news media differently than other businesses. Legal scholars are concerned about the implications of the Medlock case. They contend more factors than just reliance on censorship motives should be used to determine if a differential tax system applied to the news media warrants judicial scrutiny. Based on the Minnesota Star decision, it is imperative that states tax the press in the least discriminatory manner possible.