Let Them Play MN v. Walz

• Decision Date: 24 August 2021
• Docket Number: File No. 21-cv-79 (ECT/DTS)
• Citation: 556 F.Supp.3d 968
• Parties: LET THEM PLAY MN; Jane Doe 1, both individually and as parent and guardian of Jane Doe 2 and John Moe 3, minors; John Moe 4; Jane Doe 5; John Moe 6, as parent and guardian of John Moe 7 and Jane Doe 8, minors; Jane Doe 10; John Moe 11, Plaintiffs, v. Governor Tim WALZ, in his official capacity; Attorney General Keith Ellison, in his official capacity; Commissioner Jan Malcolm, in her official capacity; Minnesota Department of Health, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

556 F.Supp.3d 968

LET THEM PLAY MN; Jane Doe 1, both individually and as parent and guardian of Jane Doe 2 and John Moe 3, minors; John Moe 4; Jane Doe 5; John Moe 6, as parent and guardian of John Moe 7 and Jane Doe 8, minors; Jane Doe 10; John Moe 11, Plaintiffs,

v.Governor Tim WALZ, in his official capacity; Attorney General Keith Ellison, in his official capacity; Commissioner Jan Malcolm, in her official capacity; Minnesota Department of Health, Defendants.

File No. 21-cv-79 (ECT/DTS)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Signed August 24, 2021

Samuel W. Diehl and Ryan Wilson, CrossCastle, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs Let Them Play MN, Jane Doe 1, John Moe 4.

Samuel W. Diehl, CrossCastle, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs Jane Doe 10, John Moe 11.

Cicely R. Miltich and Elizabeth C. Kramer, Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, for Defendants Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Commissioner Jan Malcolm, Minnesota Department of Health.

OPINION AND ORDER

Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge

This case involves restrictions the state of Minnesota imposed on youth sports activities in an effort to limit the spread of COVID-19. After Plaintiffs were denied a preliminary injunction against the restrictions, they filed an Amended Complaint incorporating new factual allegations. Defendants have now moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Defendants’ motion will be granted. The Eleventh Amendment bars many of the claims Plaintiffs assert in the Amended Complaint. To the extent it does not, Plaintiffs’ claims are moot. By the time of the hearing on Defendants’ motion, most of the challenged restrictions had already been lifted. After the hearing, the Minnesota Legislature terminated the peacetime-emergency declaration that had given all of Governor Tim Walz's COVID-19-related emergency executive orders legal effect. Finally, if a live controversy remained, Plaintiffs’ claims would still fail on the merits.

I

A

The COVID-19 pandemic has inspired significant responses from federal, state, and local government officials. On March 13, 2020, the President declared a national emergency. Second Miltich Decl. ¶ 30, Ex. 26 [ECF Nos. 51, 51-26]. That same day, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz declared a "peacetime emergency." Minn. Exec. Order 20-01 (Mar. 13, 2020); see Minn. Stat. §§ 12.21, subd. 3, 12.31, subds. 2–3, and 12.32 (authorizing the Governor to promulgate orders and rules with "the full force and effect of law" during a peacetime emergency). Since the peacetime-emergency declaration, Governor Walz has issued a series of executive orders restricting various aspects of social and economic life in an effort to control the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19. Some of those orders have affected youth sports activities. Although several executive orders—which were summarized in a prior order, see Let Them Play MN v. Walz , 517 F.Supp.3d 870, 875–76 (D. Minn. 2021) —restricted youth sports in the early months of the pandemic, the allegations in this case focus on restrictions imposed between the late fall of 2020 and the present.

Plaintiffs generally allege that, in an effort to justify restricting youth sports, state officials designed their data collection and contact tracing methods so as to exaggerate the relative risk of COVID-19 transmission attributable to sports, as opposed to other activities. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 55–95 [ECF No. 45]. For example, MDH would classify a COVID-19 case as "sports-related" if the infected individual reported playing sports or attending a sporting event "during their incubation period ... or infectious period," even if there was no clear evidence that "the transmission occurred while playing the sport." Id. ¶ 67. In contrast, Defendants "intentionally chose[ ] to avoid collecting data regarding COVID cases and outbreaks in retail settings." Id. ¶ 51. But this alleged bias occurred at the systemic level; in other words, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants inappropriately targeted any individual youth athletes—let alone named Plaintiffs—for data collection.

Plaintiffs challenge three types of limitations on youth sports activities. The first was a temporary ban on all youth sports. Governor Walz ordered the ban in Executive Order 20-99, which he issued on November 18, 2020. Second Miltich Decl., Ex. 4 ("EO 20-99") [ECF No. 51-4]. That order, among other things, required "Organized Youth Sports organizations [to] stop all in-person activities—including practices, group workouts, games, and tournaments." Id. ¶¶ 2, 7.g.¹ On December 18, 2020, Governor Walz allowed certain "[o]utdoor workouts, practices, training, [and] skill-building" to resume. First Miltich Decl., Ex. 10 ¶¶ 1, 7–8 ("EO 20-103") [ECF No. 27-10]. Starting January 3, organized youth sports could start back up in full as long as they abided by certain conditions. See id. ; see also id. , Ex. 11 ¶¶ 2, 7.g.

Those conditions are the second and third components of Plaintiffs’ challenge. Second, starting on January 10, "face coverings [had to] be worn in accordance with applicable guidance for youth sports available on the [MDH's] Stay Safe Minnesota website." Id. , Ex. 11 ¶ 7.g.v. According to MDH's online guidance at the time, face coverings generally needed to be "worn by all people at all times," and "[p]eople [were] not permitted to remove their face coverings during activities that involve a high level of exertion." Second Miltich Decl., Ex. 35 at 5–6 [ECF No. 51-35]. People with medical conditions that "ma[d]e it difficult to tolerate wearing a face covering" were exempt from the requirement. Id. at 6. Athletes could temporarily remove their face coverings during several specified activities: while engaging in "wrestling contact" and gymnastic and cheer routines, during which a mask could present a choking hazard; while in the water for water sports; and while playing outside, where social distancing was possible. Id. at 5. And when a child wore a helmet that "interfere[d] with wearing a face covering safely or effectively," the child could wear a "full face shield" instead. Id. Over the next couple of months, the agency released several updated versions of its youth-sports guidance, but these core face-covering requirements did not change, and Governor Walz most recently renewed the requirement in Executive Order 21-11 on March 12, 2021. See id. , Exs. 7, 35–38 [ECF Nos. 51-7, 51-35 through 51-38].

Third, under EO 21-01 and later orders that reaffirmed it, youth sports organizations were required to follow certain quarantine protocols identified by the Minnesota Department of Health ("MDH"). According to Plaintiffs, state officials have "applied unfair and unequal quarantine rules on young people and youth athletes[.]" Am. Compl. ¶ 136. The content of the challenged quarantine rules is not clear. Rather than pointing to a specific executive order or source of MDH guidance, as they do in their other allegations, Plaintiffs recount specific scenarios in which youth athletes have been required to quarantine. For example, although "[n]on-athlete students are required to quarantine if they are within 6 feet of each other for a cumulative total of 15 minutes in a day," a youth hockey goalie "will be required to quarantine if a defenseman on the opposing team tests positive for COVID even if that defenseman never crosses the blueline and never comes within 25 feet of the goalie." Id. ¶¶ 138, 141; see also id. ¶¶ 142–46. Plaintiff John Moe 11, a high school swimmer, was required to quarantine for fourteen days after an exposure—causing him to miss a competition—while Governor Walz allegedly quarantined for only ten days after an exposure of his own. Id. ¶¶ 163–64.

Defendants, for their part, have submitted MDH quarantine protocols with their briefing. According to a document entitled "Quarantine Guidance for COVID-19," MDH recommends that all Minnesotans exposed to COVID-19 quarantine for fourteen, ten, or seven days depending on various factors. Second Miltich Decl., Exs. 39, 40 [ECF No. 51-39 through 51-40]. EO 21-01 and its successor orders required youth sports organizations to adopt a COVID-19 preparedness plan that included quarantine and isolation rules. See EO 21-01 ¶ 7.g.ii. According to a document called "COVID-19 Organized Sports Practice and Games Guidance for Youth and Adults," sports organizations are advised to use a 14-day quarantine rule but "may allow shortened quarantine periods (of either 10 or 7 days) as long as the exposed individual meets the criteria for shortened quarantine in the" general "Quarantine Guidance for COVID-19" document. Second Miltich Decl., Ex. 38 at 15. In other words, the executive orders seem to incorporate the quarantine rules that are generally recommended for all Minnesotans, and Plaintiffs’ allegations do not identify any policy imposing unique quarantine guidance specific to youth sports.

B

Plaintiff Let Them Play MN is a Minnesota non-profit corporation that "promotes youth participation in athletics and activities[.]" Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14–15. Together with a group of unnamed youth sports athletes, coaches, and parents, the organization first filed a lawsuit challenging Executive Order 20-99—which included the temporary ban on organized youth sports—in December 2020. See Let Them Play MN v. Walz , No. 20-cv-2505 (JRT/HB) (D. Minn.), ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction in that case, arguing that EO 20-99's restrictions on social gatherings violated their First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly, and Chief Judge Tunheim denied their motion. See Let Them Play MN v. Walz , No. 20-cv-2505 (JRT/HB), 2020 WL 7425278, at *4–8 (D. Minn. Dec. 18, 2020). Soon thereafter, Plaintiffs appealed and requested a preliminary injunction pending appeal, which the Eighth Circuit denied. See Order, Let Them Play MN v. Walz , ...