Minnesota

State constitutional guarantees regarding right to education

• Minnesota Constitutional Guarantees

Minn. Const. Art. 13, § 1 Uniform system of public school. Referred to as the “Education Clause”

“The stability of a republican form of government depends 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.”

Case Law and legislative history defining and interpreting the right to education

• Bd. of Educ. of Sauk Ctr. v. Moore, 17 Minn. 412, 416 (1871).  In the earliest case interpreting the Education Clause, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the Education Clause is a mandate to the legislature, “to ensure a regular method throughout the state, whereby all may be enabled to acquire an education which will fit them to discharge intelligently of their duties as citizens of the republic.” 

• Skeen v. State, 505 N.W.2d 299 (Minn. 1993). The Minnesota Supreme Court held education is a fundamental right under the MN Constitution. 

  • Education is “a fundamental right under the state constitution, not only because of its overall importance to the state but also because of the explicit language used to describe this constitutional mandate placing “duty” on legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. 

  • The Education Clause is a mandate, not simply a grant of power, and in fact places a “duty” on the legislature to establish a “general and uniform system” of public schools. 

  • The court's opinion discussed what would be considered a challenge to the right to education (differentiating between a right to education and the funding of the education system) and how courts must evaluate such challenges.

  • The court briefly discussed the meaning of “general and uniform” citing early Minnesota cases which indicated the phrase “general and uniform” and discussions of other similar determinations made by other state courts. The phrase references the system rather than specific district organizations that may be established under it. The principle of uniformity is not violated, and the system which is adopted is made to have general and uniform application to the entire state, so that the same grade or class of public schools may be enjoyed by all localities similarly situated, and having the requisite conditions for that particular class or grade.  Curryer v. Merrill, 25 Minn. 1, 2 (1878) 

• Cruz-Guzman v. State, 998 N.W.2d 262 (Minn. 2023). Further discussion of what is required under the Education Clause (includes helpful discussion of key holdings in prior cases regarding interpretation of Education Clause). Courts have authority to adjudicate claims asserting violations of the Education Clause.  Discussion regarding what claimants need to show for a claim against the state under the Education Clause.

• The judiciary branch can adjudicate whether the legislature has satisfied its constitutional duty under the Education Clause. The interpretation of the constitution’s language is a judicial, not a legislative, question

  • Claims by parents of students enrolled in public schools that state failed to meet its obligations under Education Clause did not present a political question and were therefore justiciable; parents essentially alleged that legislature violated its constitutional duty to provide a general and uniform system of public schools that was thorough, efficient, and to ensure a method whereby all may be enabled to acquire an education which will fit them to discharge intelligently their duties as citizens, and, to resolve this question, the judiciary was not required to devise particular educational policies to remedy constitutional violations.

• The fundamental right to an education recognized in Skeen (see above) is not “merely a right to anything that might be labeled as ‘education,’ but rather, a right to a general and uniform system of education that is thorough and efficient, that is supported by sufficient and uniform funding, and that provides an adequate education to all students in Minnesota.” An education that does not equip Minnesotans to discharge their duties as citizens intelligently cannot fulfill the legislature's duty to provide an adequate education under the Education Clause.

• Racial imbalances in Minneapolis and Saint Paul public schools, as compared to other schools in the same school district, are not sufficient, standing alone, to establish a violation of the Education Clause. 

  • To prevail on their claim alleging a violation of the Education Clause based on racial imbalances, parents did not need to establish that state action caused the racial imbalances; they did need to establish, however, that the racial imbalances were a substantial factor in causing their children to receive an inadequate education. Parents must establish a causal connection between the racial imbalances and the inadequate education their children allegedly receive. 

  • For a claim against the state under the Education Clause, with potentially many different causes of the alleged inadequate education, a substantial factor standard of causation is appropriate.

• N.H. v. Anoka-Hennepin Sch. Dist. No. 11, 950 N.W.2d 553 (Minn. Ct. App. 2020). 

• The Education Clause guarantees a floor of adequate education as opposed to guaranteeing equal treatment across all aspects of education such as facility access.

State constitutional protections regarding non-discrimination and equity

No. 

The Minnesota House of Representatives has proposed the Equal Rights Amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution, which will be submitted to the people of Minnesota at the 2026 general election with effect as of January 1, 2027, if adopted. The amendment will provide for equal rights under the law and prohibit discrimination based on the listed characteristics, which include: (a) race; (b) color; (c) national origin; (d) ancestry; (e) disability; or (f) sex, including but not limited to: (i) making and effectuating decisions about all matters relating to one's own pregnancy or decision whether to become or remain pregnant; (ii) gender identity or gender expression; or (iii) sexual orientation.

Other relevant state constitutional civil rights protections

• Equal Protection Clauses of the Minnesota Constitution

No member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the state otherwise than as punishment for a crime of which the party has been convicted. Minn. Const. art. I, § 2

This clause has been interpreted by the Minnesota Supreme Court to provide essentially the same protection as the federal equal protection clause, and the court may look to federal case law in analyzing the Equal Protection Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. N.H. v. Anoka-Hennepin Sch. Dist. No. 11, 950 N.W.2d 553 (Minn. Ct. App. 2020).

• Due Process Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. Minn. Const. art. I, § 7

State law equivalents to Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, and the Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) 

Minnesota’s Human Rights Act (MHRA).  

MHRA includes protections consistent with and beyond the protections of Title VI, Title IX, Section 504 and the EEOA. MHRA prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, public services, education, credit, and business based on protected class, such as: race, religion, disability, national origin, sex, marital status, familial status, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

MHRA guarantees protection from discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in employment, housing, public accommodations, public services, and education. Race is inclusive of traits associated with race, including but not limited to hair texture and hair styles such as braids, locs, and twists.

MHRA guarantees protection from sex discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, public services, and education. Sex includes, but is not limited to, pregnancy, childbirth, and disabilities related to pregnancy or childbirth.

MHRA guarantees protection from discrimination based on disability in employment, housing, public accommodations, public services, and education. Disability is defined as “any condition or characteristic that renders a person a disabled person. A disabled person is any person who (1) has a physical, sensory, or mental impairment which materially limits one or more major life activities; (2) has a record of such an impairment; (3) is regarded as having such an impairment; or (4) has an impairment that is episodic or in remission and would materially limit a major life activity when active.”

Additional state civil rights protections that go beyond federal requirements (e.g., protections for LGBTQ+ students, multilingual learners, undocumented students)

MHRA guarantees protection from discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation in employment, housing, public accommodations, public services, and education. Gender identity means a person’s inherent sense of being a man, woman, both, or neither. A person’s gender identity may or may not correspond to their assigned sex at birth or to their primary or secondary sex characteristics. A person's gender identity is not necessarily visible to others. Sexual orientation means to whom someone is, or is perceived of as being, emotionally, physically, or sexually attracted to based on sex or gender identity. A person may be attracted to men, women, both, neither, or to people who are genderqueer, androgynous, or have other gender identities.

MHRA guarantees protection from discrimination based on status with regard to public assistance in employment, housing, public services, and education. 

MHRA applies to undocumented immigrants living in Minnesota.

State law protections regarding color of law or pattern/practice liability for law enforcement in schools

Anti-discrimination protections under state human rights statutes

The MHRA is a state-human rights statute that covers all the federal standards for anti-discrimination and more (please see above). MHRA establishes the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) to affect policy change and to investigate accusations of human rights violations.

Private right of action provisions under state civil rights and human rights statutes

The MHRA includes a private right of action provision. M.S.A. § 363A.28; M.S.A. § 363A.33. MDHR prefers that citizens file charges through the MDHR, but an individual may pursue private legal action at any time. MDHR can intervene in a civil action upon certification that the case is of general public importance. M.S.A. § 363A.33

Identify whether state anti-discrimination laws also prohibit discrimination caused by disparate impact. If yes, does the state law allow a private right of action for disparate impact claims? 

The court does recognize disparate impact arguments, and does not require direct evidence of discriminatory motive. 

This kind of argument can be rebutted by proof of legitimate purposes. See Novack v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 525 N.W.2d 592 (Minn. 1995).

There is some restriction on disparate impact claims in housing and public accommodations suits. Monson v. Rochester Athletic Club, 759 N.W.2d 60 (Minn. 2009); Edwards v. Hopkins Plaza Ltd. Partnership, 783 N.W.2d 171 (Minn. 2010).

The Minnesota Human Rights Act includes the following:

Subd. 10. Disparate impact cases in employment. If the complaining party has met its burden of showing that an employment practice is responsible for a statistically significant adverse impact on a particular class of persons protected by section 363A.08, subdivision 2, an employer must justify that practice by demonstrating that the practice is manifestly related to the job or significantly furthers an important business purpose. Upon establishment of this justification, the charging party may prevail upon demonstration of the existence of a comparably effective practice that the court finds would cause a significantly lesser adverse impact on the identified protected class. M.S.A. § 363A.28

Is the right provided by state law conferred on the student, parent/guardian, or both? In other words, who can bring a claim under this law? 

Both. MHRA uses broad standing language that permits “any person aggrieved” by a violation of the MHRA to bring claims without specific restrictions on guardian representation. The absence of any prohibition against guardian standing, combined with established Minnesota precedents allowing guardians to bring various types of civil rights claims on behalf of children, strongly support guardian authority to pursue human rights claims.

MHRD may also bring claims based on their investigations (commissioner can bring a claim without an individual claimant).

Does the specified law or policy provide protections against retaliation? What are the elements of a retaliation claim? Are protections against retaliation clearly spelled out in the law or policy?

Yes, MHRA includes explicit protections against retaliation, which the statute refers to as “reprisals”.  The relevant text from the statute is included below:

It is an unfair discriminatory practice for any individual who participated in the alleged discrimination as a perpetrator, employer, labor organization, employment agency, public accommodation, public service, educational institution, or owner, lessor, lessee, sublessee, assignee or managing agent of any real property, or any real estate broker, real estate salesperson, or employee or agent thereof to intentionally engage in any reprisal against any person because that person: (1) opposed a practice forbidden under this chapter or has filed a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter; or (2) associated with a person or group of persons who are disabled or who are of different race, color, creed, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or national origin.

A reprisal includes, but is not limited to, any form of intimidation, retaliation, or harassment. It is a reprisal for an employer to do any of the following with respect to an individual because that individual has engaged in the activities listed in clause (1) or (2): refuse to hire the individual; depart from any customary employment practice; transfer or assign the individual to a lesser position in terms of wages, hours, job classification, job security, or other employment status; or inform another employer that the individual has engaged in the activities listed in clause (1) or (2). Minn. Stat. Ann. § 363A.15

Statute of limitations for filing education-related state civil rights complaints (or state civil rights complaints broadly) or state human rights complaints?

A claim of unfair discriminatory practice must be brought by a private citizen as a civil action, or filed in a charge with MDHR within one year from the date the alleged discrimination occurred. MDHR or person may bring a civil action seeking redress for an unfair discriminatory practice directly to the relevant district court at any time during the claim process (within the statute of limitations). 

A person may bring a civil action: (i) within 90 days upon receipt of notice of (x) MDHR’s dismissal of a charge because it is frivolous or without merit, the charging party has failed to provide required information, MDHR has determined that further use of department resources is not warranted, or MDHR has determined that there is no probable cause to credit the allegations contained in a charge filed with MDHR, or (y) MDHR’s reaffirmation that there is no probable cause (following a request for reconsideration by the charging party); or (ii) within 45 days of the charge being filed if there has not been an ALJ hearing or if the MDHR has not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the charging party is a signator.

M.S.A. § 363A.28 to 33. 

Are there areas where the state laws provide more protections than federal law? What are those areas? 

The state law provides additional protections in regards to sexual orientation, gender identity, and legal status in the US. Please see above.