510 F.Supp.3d 789
D. Minnesota2020Background
- In response to COVID-19, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz issued emergency executive orders (EO 20-14, EO 20-73, EO 20-79) that largely suspend landlords’ ability to terminate residential leases or file eviction actions, subject to narrow exceptions; EO 20-79 remains in effect while the peacetime emergency is extended.
- Plaintiffs Heights Apartments, LLC and Walnut Trails, LLLP ("Landlords") own rental properties in the Twin Cities and allege they cannot evict or nonrenew certain tenants because of the EOs; they seek declaratory and injunctive relief and raise Contracts Clause, Petition Clause, Takings Clause, Due Process, §1983, and ultra vires claims.
- A federal CDC eviction moratorium also exists; it provides different/broader exceptions and allows filing (but not execution) of eviction actions and would apply in Minnesota if the state moratoria were rescinded or invalidated.
- The Landlords moved for a preliminary injunction; the State (Governor Walz and AG Keith Ellison) moved to dismiss.
- The court applied Jacobson (per Eighth Circuit precedent) but also analyzed claims under ordinary constitutional standards, found the federal claims deficient, dismissed the Complaint without prejudice, and denied the preliminary injunction as moot.
- Jurisdictional rulings: plaintiffs have Article III standing; Ex parte Young allows suits against Walz and Ellison for federal claims at this stage, but Pennhurst bars the ultra vires (state-law) claim against the Governor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Landlords injured by inability to evict; injunction would restore eviction rights | CDC moratorium would still limit evictions, so relief is not redressable | Standing exists: CDC differs (broader exceptions and allows filing), so relief would be redressable |
| Sovereign immunity / Ex parte Young & Pennhurst | May sue state officials to enjoin enforcement of allegedly unconstitutional EOs; ultra vires claim challenges Governor's authority | State argues Eleventh Amendment bars suit against state/officials; Pennhurst prohibits federal courts enjoining state officials on state-law grounds | Ex parte Young permits federal claims against Walz and Ellison at this stage; Pennhurst bars the ultra vires (state-law) claim against Governor Walz |
| Standard of review (Jacobson) | Plaintiffs urge ordinary constitutional scrutiny | State urges Jacobson deference for public-health emergency rules | Court applies Jacobson (per Eighth Circuit Rutledge) but analyzes both Jacobson and ordinary standards and states result is same under either |
| Contracts Clause | EOs substantially impair landlords’ contractual eviction rights | EOs do not substantially impair the core bargain (rent), and they reasonably advance public health | Claim fails: no substantial impairment of rent right; even if impaired, EOs reasonably and appropriately advance public-health interests |
| Petition Clause / Access to Courts | EOs bar courthouse access to evict tenants | Moratoria impose temporary delay; landlords can sue for rent and exceptions allow some evictions | Claim fails: moratoria amount to a temporary delay and alternative remedies exist; no unconstitutional denial of access |
| Takings Clause | EOs amount to a taking (compensation due) | Not a physical taking; regulatory-taking analysis (Penn Central) weighs against takings finding because program advances public good and other property rights remain | Claim fails: not a physical taking; regulatory-taking claim fails under Penn Central (public program, temporary, other property rights intact) |
| Substantive Due Process & §1983 | Aggregate constitutional harms amount to substantive due process violation; §1983 relief warranted | Specific constitutional claims fail, so §1983 fails | Substantive due process claim fails (cannot subsume discrete claims); §1983 fails because no underlying constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (permits suits against state officials to enjoin enforcement of unconstitutional state action)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984) (federal courts may not enjoin state officials on the basis of state-law violations)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1905) (government public-health measures receive substantial deference in emergencies)
- In re Rutledge, 956 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. 2020) (applying Jacobson to pandemic-related executive action)
- Sveen v. Melin, 138 S. Ct. 1815 (U.S. 2018) (Contracts Clause impairment analysis)
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (Penn Central regulatory takings framework)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1982) (physical-occupation takings)
- Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1992) (no taking where owners voluntarily rent to tenants under regulatory scheme)
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992) (categorical taking where regulation deprives all economically beneficial use)
- Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 475 U.S. 211 (U.S. 1986) (public programs that adjust benefits and burdens to promote common good typically not compensable takings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading plausibility standard)