The Minnesota Court of Appeals has ordered a lower court to reconsider Brooklyn Park City Council Member Maria Tran’s lawsuit against the city itself, the mayor and Tran’s council colleagues — nearly one year after the case was dismissed by a Hennepin County District Court judge.

The higher court affirmed much of the lower court’s ruling, finding a lack of sufficient evidence for Tran’s claims regarding defamation, discrimination and violation of the state’s open meeting law. But a mistake was made when the case was dismissed via summary judgement, according to the appeals court.

“The reasons for our decision are narrow,” three appeals court judges wrote in their Oct. 5 decision. “We merely conclude that the district court erred by granting summary judgment without addressing [the] First Amendment retaliation claim. We express no opinion on the merits of that claim, including whether it could survive summary judgment.”

Tran’s lawsuit alleges her constitutional rights were violated when five council colleagues, including Mayor Hollies Winston, voted to censure her in 2024.

The council planned to issue a written reprimand after an investigator hired by Brooklyn Park determined that Tran “unfairly criticized” the work performance of a city employee — but Tran later doubled down on her assertions and verbally argued with her council colleagues at a public meeting.

The reprimand was upgraded to a censure, which Tran’s lawsuit argues was an act of retaliation.

“The district court did not address Tran’s argument that the censure and accompanying restrictions constituted retaliation in violation of the First Amendment,” the appeals court judges wrote. “We conclude that the district court erred by failing to address this claim.”

Paul Reuvers, the attorney representing the defendants in this case, described the appeals court decision as simply a chance for the district court to “explain its reasoning” regarding the First Amendment claim.

“We are pleased the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Ms. Tran’s claims under the Open Meeting Law and Minnesota Human Rights Act, as well as her defamation claim,” Reuvers wrote in an email to the Sun Post. “We remain confident the district court will dismiss the retaliation claim again after providing the requested explanation.”

Reuvers also noted “the city, its elected officials and staff have remained focused on serving the community” throughout the litigation process.

Tran’s lawyer, Marshall Tanick, has described the 2024 censure as the “most sensitive and most important issue” within the lawsuit. He reiterated that point following the appeals court ruling.

“Overall, we are pleased with the decision because it recognized there were apparent violations of Tran’s freedom of speech,” Tanick said in a phone call with the Sun Post. “While the court did dismiss a number of peripheral claims, the core claim of a freedom of speech violation remains valid.”

Tanick noted the Oct. 5 ruling opened a 30-day window for either side to bring the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court. If neither side takes that step by early November, the case will return to district court for reconsideration on the First Amendment claim.

Among Tran’s other claims are that her peers violated Minnesota’s open meeting law and engaged in defamation — and that the city of Brooklyn Park itself engaged in discrimination.

Prior arguments

Tran’s lawsuit was dismissed by the district court in November 2025. It was filed with the appeals court less than two months later, where it remained for much of 2026.

A panel of appeals court judges heard oral arguments in July, where Tanick described Tran as a “Vietnamese native who has overcome many obstacles in her life” to join the Brooklyn Park City Council. He asked the court to reconsider multiple aspects of the lawsuit, though he noted the censure was the most central issue.

Reuvers, meanwhile, asked the judges to affirm the lower court’s ruling. He highlighted various “bizarre allegations” Tran has made, many of which resurfaced throughout court proceedings last year.

Reuvers also noted the lower court was not asked to rule on the censure itself, but rather the legality of the Code of Conduct as a whole. Reuvers said the code was “fully constitutional,” contrary to Tanick’s claim that it is “unconstitutionally overbroad.”

Tran’s original lawsuit aimed multiple counts of misconduct toward mayor Winston, as well as 2023-2024 council members Christian Eriksen, Nichole Klonowski, XP Lee and Tony McGarvey. Tran argues that her peers violated her rights, unlawfully spent public funds, violated Minnesota’s open meeting law and engaged in defamation. The lawsuit also claimed the city of Brooklyn Park itself engaged in discrimination.

The claim regarding public funds was dropped when Tanick took over as Tran’s lawyer. Following the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling, the First Amendment claim is the only issue that will be reconsidered by the Hennepin County District Court — unless the Minnesota Supreme Court intervenes.