Cruz-Guzman v. State

• Citation: 892 N.W.2d 533
• Decision Date: 13 March 2017
• Docket Number: A16-1265
• Parties: Alejandro CRUZ-GUZMAN, as guardian and next friend of his minor children, et al., Respondents, v. STATE of Minnesota, et al., Appellants, Higher Ground Academy, et al., Intervenors.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota

892 N.W.2d 533

Alejandro CRUZ-GUZMAN, as guardian and next friend of his minor children, et al., Respondents,

v. STATE of Minnesota, et al., Appellants,Higher Ground Academy, et al., Intervenors.

A16-1265

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed March 13, 2017

Review Granted April 26, 2017

Daniel R. Shulman, Joy Reopelle Anderson, Richard C. Landon, Kathryn E. Hauff, Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondents).

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Karen D. Olson, Deputy Attorney General, Kathryn M. Woodruff, Kevin A. Finnerty, Andrew Tweeten, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellants).

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Reyes, Judge.

OPINION

LARKIN, Judge

Appellants challenge the district court's refusal to dismiss respondents' class-action lawsuit, which claims that appellants violated respondents' purported right, under the Education Clause, article XIII, section 1, of the Minnesota Constitution, to an "adequate" education, that is, an education of a certain quality. Because respondents' claims present a nonjusticiable political question, we reverse.

FACTS

Respondents are the parents of children who are enrolled, or expected to be enrolled, in the Minneapolis public schools, Special School District No. 1, and the St. Paul public schools, Independent School District 625. Respondent One Family One Community is a Minnesota nonprofit corporation located in Minneapolis. One of its purposes is to "ensure and provide for adequate educational opportunities for economically-disadvantaged children and children of color."

In November 2015, respondents sued appellants State of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Education, Minnesota Department of Education Commissioner Brenda Cassellius, and the Minnesota Senate and Minnesota House of Representatives. Respondents also named Governor Mark Dayton, Senate President Sandra L. Pappas, and House Speaker Kurt Daudt as defendants. Respondents claimed violations of the Education, Equal Protection, and Due Process Clauses of the Minnesota Constitution, asserting that the children had been denied the fundamental right to receive an education. Respondents also claimed a violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, asserting that the children have been unlawfully discriminated against "in education on the basis of race and status with regard to public assistance."

Respondents alleged that "[s]chool children in public schools throughout the State of Minnesota, including the City of Minneapolis, the City of Saint Paul, and their adjacent suburban communities, are largely segregated by race and socioeconomic status," that appellants are allowing and maintaining such segregated schools, and that the Minneapolis and St. Paul public school districts have established numerous "hyper-segregated schools" with the knowledge and consent of appellants.

Respondents further alleged that their children received an inadequate education as the "result of the educational and social policies pursued or accepted by [appellants], including the racial and socioeconomic segregation of the Minneapolis and Saint Paul public schools." Respondents alleged that a "segregated education is per se an inadequate education under the Education Clause of the Minnesota State Constitution" and that "[i]n addition to receiving a racially and socioeconomically segregated education, [respondents] are in fact receiving an inadequate education by any objective measure or standard."

Respondents' complaint sets forth data showing a racial achievement gap among students in Minnesota, as well as achievement gaps between students in Minneapolis and St. Paul public schools and students in public schools in other parts of the state. The data include standardized test scores and graduation rates. The complaint alleges that these gaps are caused by racial and socioeconomic segregation.

Respondents' prayer for relief requests a judgment against appellants "[f]inding, adjudging, and decreeing that [appellants] have engaged in the violations of law set forth hereinabove" and "[p]ermanently enjoining [appellants] from continuing to engage in the violations of law set forth hereinabove, ordering [appellants] to remedy the violation of law set forth hereinabove, and ordering [appellants] to provide the [children] forthwith with an adequate and desegregated education."

Appellants moved to dismiss respondents' complaint under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 on the grounds that "(1) the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) the Complaint fails to state a claim ... upon which relief can be granted; and (3) [respondents] failed to join a party pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 19." In the alternative, appellants asked the district court to order respondents to provide a more definite statement under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.05.

The district court dismissed the complaint as to Governor Dayton, Senate President Pappas, and Speaker Daudt, concluding that they are entitled to legislative immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. The district court also dismissed respondents' claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, concluding that respondents lacked standing. The district court otherwise denied defendants' motion to dismiss and for a more definite statement, noting, however, that "[c]oncerns regarding justiciability may be warranted."

Appellants appealed, raising four issues: (1) whether the district court erred by refusing to dismiss, on legislative-immunity grounds, the claims against the Minnesota Senate and Minnesota House of Representatives, (2) whether the district court erred by refusing to dismiss the complaint as one that presents a nonjusticiable political question, (3) whether the district court erred by refusing to dismiss the complaint based on respondents' failure to join all interested persons, and (4) whether the district court erred by refusing to dismiss the claims against the State of Minnesota because it is not a proper party defendant. Appellants also petitioned for discretionary review of the district court's refusal to dismiss respondents' claims on the merits.

Respondents moved this court to dismiss appellants' appeal of the district court's rulings regarding justiciability, failure to join necessary parties, and the State's party status. This court granted respondents' motion to dismiss the claims against the State of Minnesota but otherwise denied respondents' motion, specifically stating that the "order denying appellants' motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of justiciability is appealable."

ISSUE

Did the district court err by refusing to dismiss respondents' claims for lack of any justiciable controversy?

ANALYSIS

Appellants contend that the district court erred by not dismissing respondents' complaint for lack of justiciability and failure to join necessary parties. Appellants also contend that the district court erred by not dismissing the claims against the Minnesota Senate and Minnesota House of Representatives on legislative-immunity grounds. Because our determination regarding justiciability is dispositive, we limit our review to that issue.

The existence of a justiciable controversy is essential to a court's exercise of jurisdiction and power to adjudicate. McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing , 808 N.W.2d 331, 337 (Minn.2011) ; Izaak Walton League of Am. Endowment, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Nat. Res. , 312 Minn. 587, 589, 252 N.W.2d 852, 854 (1977). Appellants argue that "all of Respondents' claims are based on an alleged right to an ‘adequate education,’ which presents a nonjusticiable political question."¹ Appellants note that "[n]umerous state supreme courts have dismissed similar complaints on justiciability grounds."² "Justiciability is an issue of law that we review de novo." McCaughtry , 808 N.W.2d at 337.

Respondents counter that appellants' argument regarding justiciability relies on "the same citations used below to support their argument that the Education Clause does not require education in the state to be ‘adequate’—which is an issue that is not properly before the Court."

We acknowledge that this court denied appellants' request for discretionary review of the district court's refusal to dismiss respondents' claims on the merits. However, an examination of the constitutional underpinnings of respondents' asserted right to an adequate education informs our de novo analysis regarding the justiciability issue, which is properly before this court.

The Education Clause, article XIII, section 1, of the Minnesota Constitution provides:

Uniform system of public schools. The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.

Whether there is a right to an "adequate" education under the Education Clause, that is, an education of a certain quality, is a question of first impression. Minnesota caselaw applying the Education Clause generally involves educational financing or resources. See, e.g. , Bd. of Educ. v. Erickson , 209 Minn. 39, 40, 295 N.W. 302, 303 (1940) (city charter levy limits); State ex rel. Klimek v. Sch. Dist. No. 70 , 204 Minn. 279, 281-82, 283 N.W. 397, 398-99 (1939) (transportation of students); Associated Schs. of Indep. Dist. No. 63 v. Sch. Dist. No. 83 , 122 Minn. 254, 254-55, 142 N.W. 325, 325 (1913) (nonresident student tuition); Curryer v. Merrill , 25 Minn. 1, 5-6 (1878) (textbooks); Bd. of Educ. v. Moore , 17 Minn. 412, 415-16, 17 Gil. 391, 393-94 (1871) (bonds issued by board of education). We are not aware of any precedential case expressly holding that Minnesota's Education Clause imposes a qualitative educational requirement.

Appellants argue that the Minnesota Constitution does not provide...