MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge’s declaration that Minnesota’s civil commitment setup forsex offenders is unconstitutional has raised serious questions about whether prosecutors can keep asking the state’s courts to send more offenders into the program as they approach release from prison.

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank ruled last week that the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, and the state law that allows for indefinite civil commitments of sex offenders, are unconstitutional. Experts on the process agree that will affect commitment cases that are already in the legal pipeline or could enter it soon — and that his ruling raises new opportunities for defense lawyers to try to keep their clients out of a program that has never fully released anyone in its more than 20 years.

“I’m sure it’s going to be a contentious issue,” said Eric Janus, president and dean of the William Mitchell College of Law. “If I were representing somebody I would be raising those issues on pendingcommitment matters.”

Olmsted County Attorney Mark Ostrem said he received a copy of a motion in Monday’s mail seeking dismissal of a commitment petition that he filed just last week. Frank’s order was attached.

At least two other defense attorneys representing sex offenders involved in commitment proceedings also plan to file motions soon to try to take advantage of Frank’s ruling.

“What do we do when we have a judge ruling that the program itself is unconstitutional?’” said Ryan Magnus, a Mankato lawyer who has three clients with pending cases.

Brian Southwell, a Minneapolis attorney who has one client in the pipeline, said he plans to ask the judge in the case to put those proceedings on hold until the legal landscape becomes clearer.