Minnesota v. Muccio: The Constitutionality of Minnesota's Sexual Grooming Law
Grooming a child for a sexual act is dangerous behavior that should be outlawed. However, state grooming laws, when drafted too broadly, run the risk of violating the First Amendment. This Comment examines a recent constitutional challenge to a Minnesota electronic grooming statute and argues that the Minnesota Supreme Court applied the wrong standard of review. The Court failed to apply strict scrutiny and thus upheld an overbroad statute in violation of First Amendment doctrine. This Comment also suggests a simple revision to bring the Minnesota statute in line with the Constitution and offers model legislation for other states interested in enacting a sexual grooming statute.
J.D. Candidate, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, 2019; B.S., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2014. I would like to thank Professor Victoria Nourse for guiding me through the first drafts of this Comment, and for helping shape the research and analysis. Additional thanks to Professor Jason DeSanto for his insight and thoughts. Finally, I would like to express my sincerest thanks to the Northwestern University Law Review staff for their help in editing and producing this piece. All errors are my own.
Copyright 2019 by Kelsey K. Chetosky
Cite as: Kelsey K. Chetosky, Comment, Minnesota v. Muccio: The Constitutionality of Minnesota’s Sexual Grooming Law, 114 Nw. U. L. Rev. Online 1 (2019), https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1269&context=nulr_online&preview_mode=1&z=1552414288.