▁Bald win ▁ruled ▁that ▁the ▁newsp apers ▁contained ▁nothing ▁but ▁sc and alous ▁and ▁def am atory ▁material , ▁and ▁perman ently ▁enjo ined ▁the ▁defend ants ▁" from ▁producing , ▁editing , ▁publishing , ▁circul ating , ▁having ▁in ▁their ▁possession , ▁s elling ▁or ▁giving ▁away ▁any ▁publication ▁what so ever ▁which ▁is ▁a ▁mal icious , ▁sc and alous ▁or ▁def am atory ▁newspaper , ▁as ▁defined ▁by ▁law ," ▁and ▁also ▁" from ▁further ▁conduct ing ▁said ▁n uis ance ▁under ▁the ▁name ▁and ▁title ▁of ▁said ▁'' The ▁Saturday ▁Press ▁or ▁any ▁other ▁name ▁or ▁title ." ▁ ▁Second ▁Minnesota ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁decision ▁ ▁On ▁appeal ▁once ▁again , ▁the ▁Minnesota ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁ruled ▁that ▁its ▁first ▁decision ▁left ▁little ▁question ▁as ▁to ▁the ▁constitution ality ▁of ▁the ▁stat ute , ▁both ▁under ▁the ▁defend ants ' ▁state ▁constitution al ▁challenge ▁and ▁a ▁new ▁argument ▁based ▁on ▁due ▁process ▁under ▁the ▁ 1 4 th ▁Am end ment ▁to ▁the ▁U . S . ▁Constitution . ▁The ▁defend ants ▁also ▁argued ▁that ▁the ▁trial ▁court ' s ▁inj unction ▁went ▁too ▁far ▁because ▁it ▁effectively ▁prevent ed ▁them ▁from ▁operating ▁any ▁newspaper , ▁but ▁their ▁appeal ▁did ▁not ▁request ▁a ▁modification ▁of ▁the ▁order . ▁The ▁court ▁in ▁any ▁case ▁disag re ed ▁with ▁their ▁interpretation ▁of ▁the ▁order ' s ▁scope , ▁stating ▁that ▁it ▁did ▁allow ▁them ▁to ▁publish ▁a ▁newspaper , ▁so ▁long ▁as ▁it ▁was ▁operated ▁" in ▁harm ony ▁with ▁the ▁public ▁w