The Minnesota Legislature's historically productive session has prompted a flurry of legal challenges, many arguing that Democratic lawmakers overstepped their constitutional authority.

A national trade group representing generic drug manufacturers sued Minnesota on Wednesday over a new law meant to minimize prescription drug price increases. Two new election laws have also been challenged — including one that restored voting rights for felons, as well as another law relating to the state's Postsecondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program.

"I think they were all easy to anticipate," GOP state Rep. Harry Niska, an attorney, said of the lawsuits, adding that he raised concerns about the constitutionality of the legislative actions during the session. "It's unfortunate that those concerns weren't taken into consideration before we went forward with the laws."

Democratic lawmakers and the state attorney general have expressed confidence that the new laws will prevail in court.

"We know from past experience that the pharmaceutical industry will challenge any attempt to rein in drug prices," said Sen. Kelly Morrison, DFL-Deephaven, who sponsored the prescription drug proposal. "They have every right to challenge this law, but I am confident that the law is both constitutional and necessary."

The prescription drug law prohibits "excessive" price increases for generic or off-patent drugs. It defines an excessive price increase as being 15% or more in a single year or 40% or more over three years.

The Association for Accessible Medicines filed the suit seeking to block the law, which it called an "unconstitutional overreach" that "grants Minnesota unprecedented powers to regulate the national pharmaceutical market." The group said the law violates the federal commerce clause and asked a judge to prevent the state from enforcing it.

"Minnesota is rejecting generic competition in favor of more government regulation — of generic drugs, the only segment of health care costs that is actually declining," David Gaugh, the association's interim president and CEO, said in a statement. "If this new law is enforced, it will harm patients and our communities by reducing choice and limiting access to essential medicines that people need."

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who's listed as a defendant, said he's not surprised the association is "not willing to cooperate with curbs on their profits and greed."

"Before this past legislative session, Minnesota was one of only 13 states that had no restrictions on any kind of price gouging," Ellison said in a statement. "Now, Minnesota has reasonable restrictions on excessive and unconscionable price increases that include generic pharmaceutical drugs."

Election law challenges

A separate suit filed by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce last week targets new election spending restrictions on companies that have foreign ownership. The measure prohibits foreign-influenced companies from making political contributions in Minnesota.

The law defines a foreign-influenced company as having a single foreign investor that owns 1% or more of its equity, or multiple foreign investors that control 5% or more of the company's equity.

Doug Loon, president and CEO of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement that "we strongly believe this law is an unconstitutional impingement on the free speech rights of members of the Minnesota business community."

"We look forward to restoring their ability — as 'people' in the eyes of the law — to participate in the democratic process," Loon said.

State Rep. Emma Greenman, DFL-Minneapolis, sponsored the broader election bill that included the disputed provision. She said the law is based on legal precedents and will help prevent foreign interests from influencing Minnesota's elections.

Foreign investors who own that much equity can wield significant influence over their company's actions, said Greenman, an elections lawyer.

"The chamber's argument is weak, because at the end of the day what they're talking about is the power of corporations that have significant foreign influence to spend money and … speak in the elections of Minnesota," Greenman said. "I think Minnesotans and the American people really reject that."

Another pending lawsuit by the conservative Minnesota Voters Alliance challenges a new law that restores felons' voting rights upon their release from prison. Minnesotans previously had to wait until they were off probation or parole to vote.

The new law restored voting rights to an estimated 55,000 formerly incarcerated Minnesotans.

Attorneys representing the Minnesota voter group argue that the state's constitution suggests the entire felony sentence — including probation — must be served before voting rights can be restored.

"Felons on supervised release, work release or probation do not meet these requirements," said Upper Midwest Law Center senior trial counsel James Dickey.

Rep. Cedrick Frazier, a Democrat from New Hope who sponsored the voting measure, said he thinks the Minnesota Voters Alliance is seeking to "suppress the vote" of those whose rights were restored.

"Although disappointed, I am not surprised by this lawsuit and I remain weary and highly skeptical of groups that seek to limit access to our democracy, as we all should," Frazier, an attorney, said in a statement last week. "However, I am confident that this lawsuit will not prevail."

More disputes ahead?

A lawsuit filed by two Christian colleges and a group of parents over changes to the state's PSEO program is proceeding, with a judge ordering state officials to not enforce the new law while the legal process unfolds.

The law prohibits postsecondary institutions that participate in PSEO from requiring a faith statement during the application process. The two schools that are suing — Crown College in St. Bonifacius, Minn., and the University of Northwestern in St. Paul — ask students to affirm the schools' religious beliefs.

Those colleges said the new law takes away their ability to offer college credits to high school students at no cost.

Democrats have said that isn't the case, noting they aren't barring the colleges from offering the PSEO program, just prohibiting them from requiring students to submit faith statements in order to participate.

Niska, the Republican legislator, said he thinks some of the laws being challenged will be struck down. And he believes more lawsuits could be filed soon over laws relating to renewable energy standards and election policy changes.

"I think we should be a lot more careful about how we write laws, and we should really try to anticipate the ways in which affected parties might bring lawsuits challenging them," Niska said.

Staff writers Briana Bierschbach and Rochelle Olson contributed to this report.