State v. Sw. Sch. of Dance, LLC
| Decision Date | 06 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | A20-1612 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, by Jan Malcolm, Commissioner of Health, in her Official capacity, Respondent, v. Southwest School of Dance, LLC, d/b/a Havens Garden, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
Affirmed; motion denied
Ramsey County District Court
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Kaitrin C. Vohs, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
Nathan M. Hansen, North St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Veronica S. Newcomer, Leonard Fineday, White Earth, Minnesota (for White Earth Band of Ojibwe)
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
In this appeal from a civil contempt judgment and the underlying temporary injunction requiring compliance with the governor's COVID-19 executive order restricting restaurant service, appellant-restaurant argues that enforcement of the executive order violates appellant's constitutional right to equal protection in that restaurants located on Indian reservations in the state were exempted from the order. Because we conclude that the executive order does not violate appellant's constitutional right to equal protection, we affirm. Respondent-state also brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for mootness. Because we conclude that the issues raised by the appeal are not moot, the state's motion to dismiss is denied.
On March 13, 2020, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz issued Emergency Executive Order No. 20-1 declaring a peacetime emergency due to the spread of the infectious disease COVID-19 and the resulting pandemic. Emerg. Exec. Order No. 20-01, Declaring a Peacetime Emergency & Coordinating Minnesota's Strategy to Protect Minnesotans from COVID-19 (Mar. 13, 2020) (EEO 20-1). In EEO 20-1, Governor Walz ordered the Minnesota Department of Health to lead the coordination of Minnesota's response to COVID-19 in consultation with tribal nations, among others. Throughout the remainder of 2020, Governor Walz issued orders renewing and extending this state of emergency roughly every 30 days. Emergency Executive Orders Nos. 20-35 (Apr. 13, 2020), 20-53 (May 13, 2020), 20-75 (June 12, 2020), 20-78 (July 13, 2020), 20-83 (Aug. 12, 2020), 20-89 (Sept. 11, 2020), 20-92 (Oct. 12, 2020), 20-97 (Nov. 12, 2020), 20-100 (Dec. 14, 2020).
On November 18, 2020, Governor Walz issued Emergency Executive Order No. 20-99 prohibiting restaurants, bars, tobacco establishments, and other places of publicaccommodation offering food, beverage, or tobacco products from operating for on-premises consumption from November 20, 2020, through December 18, 2020. Emerg. Exec. Order No. 20-99, Implementing a Four Week Dial Back on Certain Activities to Slow the Spread of COVID-19 (Nov. 18, 2020) (EEO 20-99). However, EEO 20-99 contained the following exemption for tribal activities and lands: "Activities by tribal members within the boundaries of their tribal reservations are exempt from the restrictions in this Executive Order but may be subject to restrictions by tribal authorities." Governor Walz encouraged "state and local licensing and regulatory entities that inspect businesses for compliance with rules and codes to protect the public" by assessing regulated businesses' compliance with the executive order and using any existing enforcement tools to bring businesses into compliance with its terms. EEO 20-99.
Appellant Southwest School of Dance, LLC, d/b/a Havens Garden, has a license from Southwest Health and Human Services (SWHHS) to operate Havens Garden as a food and beverage service establishment in Minnesota. On November 23, 2020, SWHHS contacted appellant about Havens Garden's Facebook advertisement for an event featuring live music, food, and an open microphone on November 27, 2020. Appellant informed SWHHS that it intended to proceed with the event and provide indoor dining. Two days later, SWHHS sent a letter to appellant stating that "[i]ndoor dining and the planned gathering scheduled for November 27 from 9pm-11pm would be considered a violation of [E]EO 20-99, requiring SWHHS inspection staff to proceed with enforcement action."
On November 27, 2020, SWHHS conducted an onsite inspection of Havens Garden and observed approximately 80 to 100 people consuming food and beverages inside therestaurant. After determining that Havens Garden violated EEO 20-99 by remaining open to the public for on-premises consumption of food and drink, SWHHS issued an order on December 9, 2020, requiring appellant to cease and desist operation of Havens Garden. After being served with the cease and desist order, Havens Garden posted a video to its public Facebook page announcing its intention to remain open for on-premises consumption of food and beverages on December 9, 10, and 11, 2020.
On December 11, 2020, the state by its commissioner of health filed a civil complaint, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a temporary injunction against appellant. In its motion, the state asked the district court to (1) enjoin appellant from providing on-site consumption services at Havens Garden in violation of EEO 20-99, and (2) order appellant to comply with EEO 20-99 and any future executive orders applying to restaurants, bars, or food and beverage establishments. The next day, the district court granted the state's motion for a TRO and ordered appellant to certify in writing that it was no longer providing on-premises consumption services within one hour after being served a copy of the TRO. The state served appellant with a copy of the TRO on December 14, 2020, at 10:50 a.m. There is no evidence in the record that appellant certified in writing that it was no longer providing on-premises consumption services within one hour of being served the TRO.
Appellant filed a responsive memorandum opposing the state's motion for a temporary injunction, arguing that EEO 20-99 violated its constitutional right to equal protection by discriminating in favor of tribal restaurants. After a hearing on December 16, 2020, the district court issued a temporary injunction enjoining appellant from takingany action violating EEO 20-99 including, but not limited to, providing onsite consumption services at Havens Garden. The district court ordered appellant to comply with EEO 20-99 and any future executive orders applying to restaurants, bars, or food and beverage establishments. The district court also ordered appellant to certify its compliance with the temporary injunction within one hour after being served with a copy of the order for the temporary injunction. The state served appellant with a copy of the order for the temporary injunction on December 17, 2020, at 2:58 p.m. There is no evidence in the record that appellant certified its compliance with the order for the temporary injunction within one hour of being served.
Because appellant refused to comply with the TRO and order for the temporary injunction, the state moved the district court to order appellant to show cause for why it should not be held in contempt of court. At the December 18, 2020, hearing on the state's motion to show cause, appellant informed the district court that it would not comply with the district court's orders or Governor Walz's executive orders, arguing that they were "unlawful and unconstitutional." The district court found appellant to be in constructive civil contempt for its failure to comply with the district court's December 12 and 16 orders, and ordered appellant to pay a $250 fine for each day Havens Garden remained open in violation of the district court's order, beginning on December 19, 2020. In the contempt order, the district court states that its finding of civil contempt shall be vacated and dismissed "[u]pon [appellant's] filing of an affidavit of compliance demonstrating compliance" with the district court's order. There is nothing in the record indicating that appellant has certified or demonstrated compliance with the district court's December 12,16, and 18 orders. Appellant now appeals the district court's civil contempt judgment and the underlying temporary injunction.1
The United States Supreme Court has recognized tribal sovereignty for more than a century and a half, explaining that under federal law, "Indian tribes are 'domestic dependent nations' that exercise inherent sovereign authority over their members and territories." Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505, 509, 111 S. Ct. 905 (1991) (citing Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1, 13 (1831)). As Chief Justice John Marshall described nearly two centuries ago, Indian tribes are "distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights, as the undisputed possessors of the soil, from time immemorial . . . ." Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 519 (1832). Tribes not only enjoy the authority to exercise control within the boundaries of their lands, but they also possess the inherent "power of regulating their internal and social relations." United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 557, 95 S. Ct. 710 (1975) (quotation omitted). This "unique legal status of Indian tribes . . . permits the Federal Government to enact legislation singling out tribal Indians," even where that legislation "might otherwise be constitutionally offensive." Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 500-501, 99 S. Ct. 740, 761 (1979).
Nonetheless, appellant argues that EEO 20-99 violates the Equal Protection Clauses of both the Minnesota and the United States Constitutions by discriminating in favor of tribal restaurants, and that the district court therefore erred by enforcing it by issuing a temporary injunction against appellant and finding appellant in constructive civil contempt. "Issues of constitutional...
To continue reading
Request your trial