Minnesota Federation of Teachers v. Mammenga

• Decision Date: 28 April 1992
• Docket Number: No. C0-91-2357,C0-91-2357
• Citation: 485 N.W.2d 305
• Parties: 75 Ed. Law Rep. 487 MINNESOTA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, et al., Appellants, v. Gene MAMMENGA, Commissioner of Education, et al., Augsburg College, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 305

485 N.W.2d 305

75 Ed. Law Rep. 487

MINNESOTA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, et al., Appellants, v. Gene MAMMENGA, Commissioner of Education, et al., Augsburg

College, et al., Respondents.

No. C0-91-2357.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

April 28, 1992.

Review Denied June 30, 1992.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A statute providing payments to colleges and universities for classes offered to high school students does not violate the establishment clauses of the Minnesota Constitution when the colleges and universities are nonsectarian and do not use the funds for religious purposes.

2. A statute providing payments to colleges and universities for classes offered to high school students does not violate the establishment clauses of the Minnesota Constitution when the students select which colleges to attend and any benefit to the colleges is incidental.

3. Collateral estoppel is proper where facts necessary to the resulting judgment have been litigated by the parties in a previous action.

Roger A. Peterson, Ronald G. Marks, Hubert G. Leon, Peterson, Engberg & Peterson, Minneapolis, for Minnesota Federation of Teachers, et al.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Cindy L. Lavorato, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for Gene Mammenga, Com'r of Educ., et al.

James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Minneapolis, for Augsburg College, et al.

Considered and decided by DAVIES, P.J., and KLAPHAKE and STONE, ^* JJ.

OPINION

DAVIES, Judge.

Appellants challenge the constitutionality, under Minn.Const. art. 1, Sec. 16, and art. 13, Sec. 2, the establishment of religion clauses, of the Post-Secondary Enrollment Options Act (PSEOA). Appellants challenge a grant of summary judgment. We affirm as to all respondents except Bethel College.

FACTS

In 1985, appellants began an action in federal court alleging that Minn.Stat. Sec. 123.3514 (1990), the PSEOA, violated both the federal and state constitutions. At the state's request, the challenges based on state law were dismissed without prejudice. Appellants' federal claims later were dismissed on summary judgment. Minnesota Fed'n of Teachers v. Nelson, 740 F.Supp. 694, 721 (D.Minn.1990) (hereafter MFT v. Nelson).

Appellants then sued respondents in state court, alleging that the PSEOA violates the Minnesota Constitution. One count of appellants' complaint was dismissed voluntarily. The trial court granted summary judgment as to the other counts. Appellants challenge that grant of summary judgment.

The purpose of Minn.Stat. Sec. 123.3514 (1990) is

to promote rigorous academic pursuits and to provide a variety of options to high school pupils by encouraging and enabling secondary pupils to enroll full time or part time in nonsectarian courses or programs in eligible post-secondary institutions.

Id. subd. 2. An eligible institution is

a Minnesota public post-secondary institution, * * * or a private, residential, two-year or four-year, liberal arts, degree-granting college or university located in Minnesota.

Id. subd. 3.

Eleventh and twelfth grade students in the public schools may apply to any eligible college or university. If the student is accepted, the student may take courses for either secondary or post-secondary credit.

If the student elects to take the courses for secondary credit, the student need not pay tuition, fees, or the cost of books. Instead, the state pays the college or university those costs or a lesser amount. According to the evidence before the federal court, "reimbursement received from the state is less than the actual instructional charges for courses attended by PSEOA students" at all the colleges, and "on average, * * * [was] only 53.05 percent of the actual costs * * * for PSEOA students during the 1988-89 school year." MFT v. Nelson, 740 F.Supp. at 704.

The evidence presented in the federal action also indicated that, with the exception of Bethel College:

1) neither course structure nor course content is controlled by the church or denomination with which the respondent colleges are affiliated;

2) the respondent colleges admit both PSEOA and non-PSEOA students without regard to creed and they select students "only if they demonstrate academic excellence and personal maturity through their high school record, activities and personal references";

3) the respondent colleges do not require attendance at religious services, do not enforce adherence to religious dogma, and do not attempt to indoctrinate or proselytize students;

4) the respondent colleges all follow the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom of the American Association of University Professors such that "all courses are taught according to the academic requirements which are intrinsic to the subject matter, and the individual teacher's concept of professional standards"; and

5) PSEOA students may not take religion or theology courses. Id. at 697.

ISSUES

1. Did the trial court err in holding that the PSEOA does not violate article 1, section 16, and article 13, section 2, of the Minnesota Constitution, the establishment of religion clauses?

2. Did the trial court err in holding that the parties are collaterally estopped by the federal court's determinations that the institutions are nonsectarian and that the institutions did not benefit or use the funds for religious purposes?

ANALYSIS

The trial court granted summary judgment for respondent colleges. In a review of summary judgment this court is to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the law has been applied correctly. Betlach v. Wayzata Condominium, 281 N.W.2d 328, 330 (Minn.1979). Conclusions of law are not binding on appellate courts. A.J. Chromy Constr. Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Serv., Inc., 260 N.W.2d 579, 582 (Minn.1977).

The relevant clauses of the Minnesota Constitution on establishment of religion read as follows:

[N]or shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious societies or religious or theological seminaries.

Minn.Const. art. 1, Sec. 16.

In no case shall any public money or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools wherein the distinctive doctrines, creeds or tenets of any particular * * * religious sect are promulgated or taught.

Minn.Const. art. 13, Sec. 2.

Appellants argue that the respondent colleges are religious societies which teach religion and that they are benefitted or supported by public monies through the PSEOA in violation of these clauses of the constitution.

A statute is presumed constitutional, Hickman v. Group Health Plan, 396 N.W.2d 10, 13 (Minn.1986), and the challenger has the heavy burden of demonstrating unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318, 321 (Minn.1990), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 931, 110 S.Ct. 2633, 110 L.Ed.2d 653 (1990).

Twice during the 1970s, the Minnesota Supreme Court dealt with the interpretation of the two constitutional provisions at issue and those two cases provide the basis for our analysis here.

1. Americans United

In Americans United, Inc. v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 622, 288 Minn. 196, 179 N.W.2d 146 (1970), the court dealt with the use of public funds to transport children to sectarian primary and secondary schools. Id. at 197-98, 179 N.W.2d at 147. The court upheld the statute despite the court's conclusion that support for parochial primary and secondary schools was "equivalent to support of religion." Id. at 215, 179 N.W.2d at 156.

Because it concluded the schools were religious in nature, the court had to determine what constituted support or benefit to an institution and whether our constitution precluded every potential benefit. The supreme court reviewed cases from other states, analyzing both the majority and minority views among states with similar constitutional provisions. See id. at 202-05, 179 N.W.2d at 150-51.

The court then applied the first two steps of the analysis later adopted in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), looking first at whether there was a secular purpose for the legislation and then at the primary effect of the legislation in advancing or inhibiting religion. Americans United, 288 Minn. at 209, 214, 179 N.W.2d at 153, 156.

The court adopted a view consistent with the majority of states. See id. at 202-05, 214, 179 N.W.2d at 150-51, 156. In so doing, it rejected an interpretation of the Minnesota Constitution that would prohibit any indirect or incidental benefit to religiously oriented institutions, even if an institution is so pervasively sectarian that some aid to religion results. The court said:

We do not believe that the purpose and primary effect of the statute is to benefit religion or to support sectarian schools. These results, in our opinion, are purely incidental and inconsequential.

Id. at 214, 179 N.W.2d at 156. Thus, the court found that indirect or incidental aid to sectarian primary and secondary schools did not violate Minn. Const. art. 1, Sec. 16, nor the provision of Minn. Const. art. 13, Sec. 2, against using public money for "schools wherein the distinctive doctrines * * * of any particular * * * religious sect are promulgated or taught." See id. at 214-15, 179 N.W.2d at 156.

While the payments under the PSEOA are made directly to the colleges, the federal district court earlier found that "[i]t is the student's choice of which [college or university] to attend that determines the flow of funds from the state to the religiously affiliated [college or university]" and that "[o]n its face the statute neutrally defines institutions eligible to participate in the program." MFT v. Nelson, 740 F.Supp. at 704. As a result, the court held that the aid is indirect and, even if it were direct, that:

[W]here a statute neutrally provides assistance to a class defined without reference to religion, and where any aid ultimately flowing to a religion results from the private choices of individual beneficiaries, the statute will not...