The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that a COVID-19-era emergency declaration previously issued by Governor Tim Walz was constitutional.
While Governor Walz’s emergency was rescinded years ago, lawsuits have been filed questioning the order’s legality.
On May 10, the court rejected a lawsuit filed on behalf of Minnesota residents and business owners who contended that the order was unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Natalie Hudson and Justices Margaret Chutich, Anne McKeig, and Paul Thissen signed onto Justice Moore’s opinion.
Justice G.
Barry Anderson wrote a concurrence and mostly agreed with Justice Moore’s rationale, while Justice Karl Procaccini did not participate in the decision due to his prior relationship with Governor Walz.
In their ruling, the justices stated that although the separation of powers is an important aspect of the state’s constitutional framework, there must be some degree of flexibility when determining the boundaries of each branch of government.
They determined that the act did not represent an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and acknowledged the limitations on the scope of powers delegated, as well as the non-illusory checks on the executive’s exercise of those delegated powers.
Governor Walz declared a state of emergency over the COVID-19 pandemic on March 20, 2019, although initially it did not impose any restrictions and merely suggested that Minnesotans should stay home when feeling sick.
However, the governor—like many other state officials nationwide—issued several subsequent directives in the following months that shut down restaurants, schools, and certain businesses, as well as mandating the use of masks.
In his concurrence, Justice Anderson agreed that an underlying state law allowing such emergencies to be declared is constitutional but suggested that it should be amended by the state Legislature.
He pointed out that both the Senate and House can end the governor’s emergency powers if they come to a mutual agreement on the matter.
The more prolonged an emergency becomes, the greater the need to delineate the limits upon the authority of the executive branch,” he wrote in his concurrence.
But it is to the policy-making branches—the legislative and the executive—that this duty is assigned, not the judicial branch.
And the time to address these fundamental issues dealing with the distribution of, and a check upon, political power is when no emergency is present.
Following the state Supreme Court’s ruling last week, the law center expressed disappointment in the decision, warning that a future governor could take actions that are unconstitutional.
They argued that the Legislature did not set aside partisan interests when Governor Walz declared a statewide COVID-19 emergency and that the current Legislature has passed one unconstitutional law after another based on slim majorities.
The lawsuit filed by the group argued that only the state House and Senate have the power to create laws and that Mr.
Walz went beyond his jurisdiction by declaring a statewide COVID-19 emergency.
The high court, in its decision on May 10, did not have the opportunity to examine whether any particular emergency order that could be issued in the future would violate other constitutional guarantees.
Two other courts, including the Minnesota Court of Appeals, concluded that the state’s emergency management act allows the governor to declare an emergency during peacetime if there is a public health emergency.
The Upper Midwest Law Center filed an appeal of that decision to the state’s high court.
It is unclear whether the group, which originally filed the lawsuit in 2020, is planning to appeal the state Supreme Court’s order.