Sela Investments, Ltd LLP, Respondent, vs. J.H., Appellant.
A24-1380
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT
June 17, 2026
McKeig, J.
Court of Appeals. Filed: June 17, 2026 Office of Appellate Courts
Elizabeth F. Sauer, Central Minnesota Legal Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Whitney L. Herold, Max Tsai, Julia D. Zwak, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant.
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Madeleine DeMeules, Assistant Attorney Generаl, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for intervenor the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General.
Lawrence McDonough, Samuel Spaid, HOME Line, Bloomington, Minnesota, for amicus curiae HOME Line.
Jessica Szuminski, Housing Justice Center, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Housing Justice Center.
Kayleen Asmus, Karen Fairbairn Nath, Legal Assistance of Olmsted County, Rochester, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Legal Assistance of Olmsted County.
Elizabeth Warner (Frazier), Walter Burk, Minnesota Assistance Council for Veterans, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Assistance Council for Veterans.
Sonja J. Woodward, Volunteer Lawyers Network, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Volunteer Lawyers Network.
SYLLABUS
To have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute, a party must show that the statute has or is about to disadvantage the party‘s legal interest or right.
Vacated.
OPINION
MCKEIG, Justice.
In 2023, the Legislature amended Minnesota‘s eviction expungement statute to provide that a “court shall order expungement of an eviction case ... upon motion of the defendant, if the сase is settled and the defendant fulfills the terms of the settlement.” Act of May 19, 2023, ch. 52, art. 19, § 118, 2023 Minn. Laws 810, 1188 (codified as amended at
Standing, however, is a threshold issue. And consistent with our precedent, we hold that to have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute, a party must show that the statute has or is about to disadvantage the party‘s legal interest or right. Here, Sela Investments has not shown that the eviction settlement expungemеnt provision,
Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals.
FACTS
- “expungement” means the removal of evidence of the court file‘s existence from the publicly accessible records;
- “eviction case” means an action brought under sections 504B.281 to 504B.371; and
- “court file” means the court file created when an eviction case is filed with the court.
[t]he court may order expungement of an eviction case court file if the court finds the expungement is clearly in the interests of justice and those interests are not outweighеd by the public‘s interest in knowing about the record.
In 2023, the Legislature amended subdivision 3 to expand the circumstances under which a “court shall ... order expungement of an eviction case.” Act of May 19, 2023, ch. 52, art. 19, § 118, 2023 Minn. Laws 810, 1188 (codified as amended at
In December 2023, respondent Sela Investments brought an eviction action against appellant J.H.1 The parties resolved the eviction action through a court-approved
Approximately six months later, J.H. filed a motion for expungement of the December 2023 eviction court file and a supporting affidavit. J.H. sought expungement based on J.H.‘s compliance with the settlement agreement under the eviction settlement expungement provision in
Sela Investments appealed the expungement order to the court of appeals, challenging the constitutionality of
We granted J.H.‘s petition for review. Before our court, the Attorney General raised—and Sela Investments responded to—the question of Sela Investments’ standing.
ANALYSIS
We granted review to determine the constitutionality of the eviction settlement expungement provision, now codified at
Standing is a question of law that we review de novo. See St. Paul Area Chamber of Com. v. Marzitelli, 258 N.W.2d 585, 588 (Minn. 1977) (reviewing the plaintiffs’ standing de novo without explicitly stating the standard of review). And it is of no consequence that standing was not pressed by any party or passed upon before the case reached our court; standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite that—even if it had not been raised by the parties—“we can address sua sponte.” See Minn. Sands, LLC v. County of Winona, 940 N.W.2d 183, 191 n.9 (Minn. 2020).
To have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute, “the litigant bringing the challenge must ... be able to show that the statute is, or is about to be, applied to [the litigant‘s] disadvantage.” Marzitelli, 258 N.W.2d 588; see also State ex rel. Clinton Falls Nursery Cо. v. Steele Cnty. Bd. of Comm‘rs, 232 N.W. 737, 737 (Minn. 1930) (“It is the well-established law that a litigant may be heard to question the constitutionality of a statute only when and so far as it is being or is about to be applied to his disadvantage.“). To show disadvantage, the challenger must prove “possession of a legal interest or right” that the statute “place[s] in jeopardy.” State ex rel. Smith v. Haveland, 25 N.W.2d 474, 477 (Minn. 1946). This legal interest or right must be specific to the challenger; “[i]t is not sufficient that [the challenger] suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.” Minn. Ass‘n of Pub. Schs. v. Hanson, 178 N.W.2d 846, 850 (Minn. 1970).
As outlined above, under the eviction settlement expungement provision, “[a] court shall ... order expungement of an eviction сase ... upon motion of a defendant, if
Here, J.H. satisfied each aspect оf the eviction settlement expungement provision required for the court to expunge the court file. First, Sela Investments and J.H. reached a court-approved settlement agreement under which J.H. was required to vacate the apartment by a specific date. Second, J.H. vacated the apartment by the required date, thus fulfilling the terms of the settlement. Third, J.H. moved the district court to expunge the eviction court file pursuant to the eviction settlement expungement provision. Sela Investments disputes none of these facts. And for reasons explained below, we conclude that Sela Investments has not proved that it possesses any “legal interest or right” that the expungement of J.H.‘s eviction court file jeopardizes, Haveland, 25 N.W.2d at 477, and that the statute has not been, and is not about to be, applied to Sela Investments’ disadvantage in the matter of the expungement of J.H.‘s eviction court file, see Marzitelli, 258 N.W.2d at 588.
Sela Investments argues it has standing for two reasons: first, because it was the plaintiff in the December 2023 eviction case; and second, because the expungement “aggrieves” it. We address each argument in turn.
Sela Investments first argues it has standing because it was the plaintiff in the December 2023 eviction case. On appеal, Sela Investments does not challenge the outcome of the eviction case. Instead, it now challenges the constitutionality of
Sela Investments next argues that it has standing because the expungement of the eviction case “aggrieves” Sela Investments; in other words, the expungement harmed Sela Investments. But Sela Investments does not articulate any harm it has suffered or will suffer by the expungement of J.H.‘s eviction court file. In fact, Sela Investments admits that it “will be able to retain its own proprietary knowledge of J.H. and not rent to that person again.” We have no reason to doubt this is true. Sela Investments therefore has not shown that it has been or is about to be harmed by the “the removal of evidence of the court file‘s existence from the publicly accessible records“—that is, the expungement of J.H.‘s court file.
Accordingly, we conclude that Sela Investments does not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of
B.
Because Sela Investments lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the eviction settlement expungement provision, we must next consider whether we should vacate the precedential decision of the court of appeals. “Vacatur is proper when the court
A court does not have jurisdiction to determinе the constitutionality of a statute if the challenger cannot show it has standing. Marzitelli, 258 N.W.2d at 588 (stating that a litigant challenging the constitutionality of a statute must have standing “to invoke the jurisdiction of the court“). Here, as we conclude above, Sela Investments cannot show it has standing to challenge the constitutionality of
We acknowledge that neither J.H. nor the Attorney General challenged Sela Investments’ standing before the court of appeals. But this did not exemрt the court of appeals from its independent obligation to ensure Sela Investments had standing. See, e.g., Glaze v. State, 909 N.W.2d 322, 325 (Minn. 2018) (“Standing cannot be waived by the parties and must be maintained at each stage of litigation, including on appeal. Accordingly, we examine standing regardless of whether it was raised by the parties ....” (citations omitted)); Webster v. Hennepin County, 910 N.W.2d 420, 433 (Minn. 2018) (“Standing to appeal is essential to our jurisdiction. Even when a party has not raised the issue, we can question a party‘s standing on our own motion.” (citation omitted)); Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale, 435 N.W.2d 24, 27 (Minn. 1989) (“The question of standing, which can be raised by this court on its own motion, is essential to
Nor does the parties’ failure to address standing to the court of appeals affect our decision to vacate that court‘s decision. We have previously vacated decisions of the court of appeals without deciding the merits of the underlying issues when that court lacked jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Welfare of Child. of L.K., 32 N.W.3d 163, 168 (Minn. 2026) (vacating a portion of the court of appeals’ decision because that issue was not properly before the court); Reichel, 11 N.W.3d at 611 (vacating the court of appeals’ decision because the district court had not reachеd the claims); Howard, 890 N.W.2d 111, 116 (Minn. 2017) (vacating the court of appeals’ decision because the order was nonappealable and there was no good cause to suspend the rules of appellate procedure); McCullough & Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, 883 N.W.2d 580, 592 (Minn. 2016) (vacating the court of appeals’ decision because the order at issue was nonappealable); Case v. Woods, 377 N.W.2d 924, 924 (Minn. 1985) (per curiam) (vacating the court of appeals’ decision because the matter was moot before that court).
Accordingly, because the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over this matter, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals.
Vacated.