Stewart v. Walz

Background

Russell Stewart was a tenured professor at Lake Superior College (LSC), a public college in Duluth, Minnesota, where he had worked since 1992. In August 2021, Governor Timothy Walz announced a policy — later formalized by the Minnesota Department of Management and Budget (MMB) — requiring state employees working onsite to either provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination or submit to weekly COVID-19 testing, effective September 8, 2021.

Stewart refused to comply, telling college officials he believed the Governor and MMB lacked constitutional and statutory authority to impose the policy and that it violated rights of medical autonomy, bodily self-determination, and privacy. The college offered privacy accommodations and a less invasive testing method; Stewart declined both. He was placed on unpaid leave with his teaching duties immediately suspended.

On the day he was placed on leave, Stewart used his work email to send a message to his students explaining his suspension, calling the policy 'unlawful,' 'immoral,' and 'coercive,' criticizing Governor Walz by name as 'shameful,' and urging students to 'pay attention to the world around you and think hard about what you see and hear.' One week later, the college initiated a misconduct investigation and disciplinary hearing, citing both his noncompliance and the student email — which was described as an 'unauthorized use of state property' to express 'personal political opinions.' Stewart's teaching suspension continued for months.

In January 2022, after contracting COVID-19, Stewart asked President Patricia Rogers for a religious exemption, arguing compliance would violate his 'sincerely held religious commitment to the principles of liberty, equality, and consent.' The college denied the request. On March 1, 2022, Rogers sent Stewart a proposed discharge letter citing both his policy noncompliance and the student email (claiming he had been explicitly told not to send it). He was terminated effective March 11, 2022.

Stewart filed suit against Governor Walz, President Rogers, Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs Linda S. Kingston, Director of Human Resources Jestina Vichorek, and Vice President of Administration Nickoel Anderson (who succeeded the official originally involved), all in their official capacities. He alleged violations of substantive due process, equal protection, First Amendment free speech (retaliation), and an unconstitutional condition on his employment.

Legal Standard

Defendants moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim for relief. The court must accept all factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor, but need not accept conclusory statements or legal conclusions.

Equal Protection (Count III — Dismissed)

The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying any person equal protection of the laws. Because Stewart did not claim membership in a 'suspect class' (such as a racial or national-origin group), the court applied the most lenient level of review — rational basis — under which the government need only show that its policy is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

The court found the vaccine-or-test policy easily met this standard. Courts have widely recognized that stemming the spread of COVID-19 is a compelling government interest, and requiring onsite state employees to vaccinate or test is rationally related to that goal. Even accepting Stewart's allegations about the superiority of naturally acquired immunity as true, the court held the state's chosen approach was not irrational. The equal-protection claim was dismissed.

Substantive Due Process (Count II — Dismissed)

Substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment protects against government interference with 'fundamental rights and liberty interests' — those deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition. When a fundamental right is at stake, the government must satisfy heightened scrutiny; otherwise, rational basis applies.

Stewart argued the policy infringed his 'constitutional right to refuse medical treatment,' warranting heightened scrutiny. The court rejected this argument on two grounds.

First, every federal circuit court to address the issue has declined to recognize an absolute right to refuse vaccination as a fundamental right. Stewart's complaint did not allege he was actually forced to receive medical treatment — only that he was required to vaccinate or test as a condition of employment.

Second, and more fundamentally, the court noted that the policy at issue was not a vaccine mandate at all — it offered a testing alternative. Stewart did not cite any authority holding that requiring non-invasive testing (saliva-based or nasal-swab) for a communicable disease implicates a fundamental right.

The court therefore applied rational basis review and found the policy satisfied that standard for the same reasons as the equal-protection analysis. The court expressly declined to decide whether the Supreme Court's 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts — which upheld state vaccination mandates — controlled here, noting that the Eighth Circuit has cautioned against applying Jacobson wholesale during the pandemic and that determining when the 'immediate public health crisis dissipated' requires a factual inquiry inappropriate at the motion-to-dismiss stage. This question was left open because rational basis review applied regardless. The due-process claim was dismissed.

Because Governor Walz was named only in connection with the equal-protection and due-process claims — both dismissed — he was removed as a defendant entirely.

First Amendment Retaliation (Count IV — Survives)

To state a First Amendment retaliation claim, a public employee must plausibly allege: (1) engagement in protected speech activity; (2) an adverse employment action; and (3) that the protected speech was a 'substantial or motivating factor' in the adverse action.

The parties did not dispute that placing Stewart on unpaid leave and ultimately terminating him constituted adverse employment actions. The court's analysis focused on the remaining two elements.

Unconstitutional Conditions (Count V — Dismissed)

The First Amendment also prohibits the government from conditioning a benefit on the surrender of a constitutional right. Stewart alleged that the policy imposed such an unconstitutional condition on his employment.

The court rejected this theory, finding Stewart's own allegations undermined it: he admitted that Ms. Vichorek never instructed him not to use his work email or contact his students. Consequences arose only after he sent the email — which the court characterized as retaliation, already covered by his surviving First Amendment retaliation claim — not as a prior condition on his employment. Count V was dismissed.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss as to Counts I, II (due process), III (equal protection), and V (unconstitutional conditions), and removed Governor Walz as a defendant. The court denied the motion to dismiss as to Count IV (First Amendment retaliation), which proceeds against defendants Rogers, Kingston, Vichorek, and Anderson in their official capacities.