The district court entered judgment of conviction, denied Casillas’s motion for a downward dispositional sentencing departure, and ordered him to serve a presumptive 23month prison term under Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines. Casillas appeals. ISSUE Did the district court err by rejecting Casillas’s First Amendment challenge to Minn. Stat. § 617.261? ANALYSIS In this case, we are asked to decide whether Minn. Stat. § 617.261 is overbroad and therefore facially invalid under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 An appellate court reviews the constitutionality of a statute de novo. Rew v. Bergstrom, 845 N.W.2d 764, 776 (Minn. 2014). “Ordinarily, laws are afforded a presumption of constitutionality, but statutes allegedly restricting First Amendment rights are not so presumed.” Dunham v. Roer, 708 N.W.2d 552, 562 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 2006). The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”2 U.S. Const. amend. I. It applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In re Welfare of A.J.B., 929 N.W.2d 840, 846 (Minn. 2019). The First 1 Casillas also argues that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and challenges his sentence. Because our review of Casillas’s overbreadth argument is dispositive, we do not reach those issues. 2 The Minnesota Constitution similarly protects the rights of all persons to “freely speak, write and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right.” Minn. Const. art. I, § 3. Although Casillas cites the Minnesota Constitution, he argues for relief under the United States Constitution. 4