Minnesota Supreme Court Ruling: What Public Breast Exposure Means for the State
The Minnesota Supreme Court continues to shape state legal standards.
Introduction
Minnesota has once again made headlines for its progressive legal landscape. In a pivotal decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that women exposing their bare breasts in public does not qualify as "lewd" conduct under current state law. This decision not only impacts individuals across Minnesota but also sets a precedent for future cases related to public nudity and gender equality.
Overview of the Supreme Court Decision
In April 2025, the Minnesota Supreme Court examined whether exposing female breasts in public is considered indecent exposure. The case centered on Eloisa Plancarte, who was arrested in Rochester after being seen with her breasts exposed in a gas station parking lot. The initial conviction, upheld by the Court of Appeals, charged her with indecent exposure. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned this conviction, stating the term "lewdly" in state law refers only to conduct of a sexual nature. Since Plancarte's actions were not sexual, the court found no violation. You can read a detailed breakdown in this CBS Minnesota article.
Key Legal Insights
Justice Karl Procaccini authored the court’s opinion. According to him, Minnesota law—specifically its indecent exposure statute—restricts only acts of a sexual nature, not non-sexual public exposure of breasts. Justice Sarah Hennesy, concurring, raised broader questions about how laws might distinguish between male and female breasts. She highlighted concerns that criminalizing only female breast exposure perpetuates outdated stereotypes. Her remarks reflect a wider national debate about gender equality and body autonomy. The case also shed light on the ambiguous legal definitions of "private parts" versus "intimate parts." Further analysis is available in the Star Tribune’s detailed coverage.
Implications for Minnesota Residents
The Supreme Court's decision means that, in Minnesota, simply exposing one's breasts in public is not illegal without sexual conduct. Law enforcement and prosecutors now have clear guidance: there must be evidence of sexual intent for indecent exposure charges to apply in these cases. Attorney Jess Braverman explained that the law remains intact but is more clearly interpreted to protect individual rights. Learn more about this interpretation and its background from MPR News’ report.
Broader Impact on Gender Equality
This ruling is significant not only for Minnesota, but also as a signal to other states reconsidering similar laws. Justice Hennesy emphasized that interpreting "private parts" to include only female and not male breasts would reinforce the sexual objectification of women. Many advocates see this decision as a step toward eliminating double standards in public decency laws. Moreover, the court noted that differentiating only on gender lines leads to further social stigma, an issue echoed in national conversations about body autonomy and gender rights.
Conclusion
The Minnesota Supreme Court's recent decision clarifies the legal boundaries of indecent exposure in the state. By ensuring that non-sexual exposure of breasts is not automatically a crime, the court supported gender equality and personal freedom. For residents and visitors of Minnesota, understanding these updated laws protects both rights and responsibilities in public spaces. Stay informed about developments in Minnesota law and continue to support efforts that advance fairness and equality.