Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (4099) v. Islamic Relief USA
0:11-cv-01573
D. MinnesotaJun 30, 2011Background
- TiZA is a Minnesota public charter school with campuses in Inver Grove Heights and Blaine.
- Islamic Relief USA, a California nonprofit, sponsored TiZA under a 2009 Sponsor Contract effective July 1, 2009, with a term to June 30, 2012.
- The 2009 Amendment to the Minnesota Charter School Law created an Minnesota incorporation provision requiring Minnesota presence for authorizers, effective for existing sponsors on July 1, 2011.
- TiZA anticipated loss of its sponsor when Islamic Relief became ineligible under the 2009 Amendment and sought a new authorizer; Islamic Relief declined to remain an authorizer and directed TiZA to find a new sponsor.
- MDE denied TiZA’s transfer applications to a new authorizer; TiZA filed suit on June 15, 2011 seeking TRO and preliminary injunction, arguing the 2009 Amendment violated constitutional provisions and that the Oct. 2010 Change of Sponsor Letter was valid.
- The court denied TiZA’s motions, concluding TiZA had not shown a likelihood of success on any claim and balancing harms/public interest in favor of denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process challenge to 2009 Amendment | TiZA argues amendment deprived notice/hearing rights. | Commissioner asserts no protected property interest; no statutory hearing triggered by legislative change. | Denied likelihood of success on due process. |
| Contract Clause impairment of the 2009 Sponsor Contract | Minnesota incorporation provision substantially impairs contract with Islamic Relief. | Lawful public-oversight measure; contract provision auto-adjusts to conform with new law. | Denied likelihood of success on impairment of contracts. |
| Dormant Commerce Clause | In-state bias against out-of-state sponsor discriminatory to TiZA. | Provision applies to all nonprofit authorizers; not a burden on interstate commerce. | Denied likelihood of success on Commerce Clause. |
| Equal Protection | TiZA singled out with no plausible non-discriminatory rationale for the 2009 Amendment. | Evidence supports a legitimate public purpose; provision applies to all nonprofit authorizers with Minnesota presence. | Denied likelihood of success on Equal Protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (preliminary injunction factors; complete burden on movant)
- West Pub. Co. v. Mead Data Cent., Inc., 799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986) (balance of factors; public interest considerations)
- Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners, 811 F.2d 414 (8th Cir. 1987) (complete burden on movant; standard for injunctive relief)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court 1992) (standing requirements for constitutional challenges)
- Planned Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) (likelihood-to-prevail standard for challenging legislation)
- Am. Fed'n of State, County & Mun. Emps. v. City of Benton, 513 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantial public-interest considerations in impairment analysis)