Let Them Play MN v. Walz

Background

The plaintiffs were Let Them Play MN, parents, their children, coaches, and other individuals who believed that Minnesota’s prohibition on youth sports was unfair during the COVID-19 pandemic. They sued Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Commissioner Jan Malcolm, the Minnesota Department of Health, Commissioner Alice Roberts-Davis, and the Minnesota Department of Administration, all as identified in the opinion.

The plaintiffs challenged Minnesota Executive Order 20-99, which temporarily prohibited social gatherings and organized youth sports. The order defined social gatherings broadly to include groups from different households meeting for a common social, community, or leisure purpose. It allowed some activities, including certain religious services, drive-in gatherings, and permitted business and public-accommodation activities subject to restrictions. The order prohibited organized youth sports, with stated exceptions for childcare, school physical education, and activities involving members of the same household.

The plaintiffs planned a protest at the Minnesota State Capitol concerning the youth-sports prohibition. They sought a preliminary injunction—a temporary order preventing enforcement of the social-gathering restriction against speech, expressive conduct, or assembly. They also sought expedited discovery, meaning permission to obtain information before the usual discovery process, in anticipation of a later request concerning the youth-sports prohibition.

Standing and Mootness

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they withdrew an initial protest-permit application, the requested protest dates had passed, and the plaintiffs had not submitted additional applications. The court held that the plaintiffs had standing because there was a substantial risk that their alleged injury would recur: additional requests to gather at the Capitol would continue to be denied while Executive Order 20-99 remained in effect.

The defendants also argued that the First Amendment challenge was moot because Executive Order 20-99 was scheduled to expire on December 18, 2020. The court rejected that argument at the time of its decision because the order had not yet expired and the court could still provide effective relief.

Preliminary Injunction

To decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the court applied four factors: the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success, the threat of irreparable harm, the balance of harms, and the public interest.

The court analyzed the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim under both the two-part test associated with Jacobson v. Massachusetts and the usual intermediate-scrutiny test for content-neutral speech restrictions. The court said the applicable standard during the pandemic was not entirely clear because relevant appellate and Supreme Court guidance pointed in different directions.

Under the Jacobson test, the court found that Executive Order 20-99 had a real and substantial relationship to the public-health crisis because it was intended to reduce the spread of COVID-19. The court also found that the order was not, beyond all question, a plain and palpable invasion of constitutional rights because the plaintiffs could use social media, traditional media, and drive-through protests, and because the restriction had an expiration date.

Under intermediate scrutiny, the court found that the order served the significant government interest of protecting public health and safety. It also found the restriction narrowly tailored because it focused on gatherings involving close contact, did not prohibit every type of gathering, and was temporary. The court further found that the plaintiffs had ample alternative channels for communication.

The court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their First Amendment claim. Based on that conclusion, it found that the plaintiffs had not shown the required threat of irreparable harm. It also found that the balance of harms and the public interest favored the defendants because an injunction would hinder the state’s efforts to protect public health and safety.

Expedited Discovery

The court denied expedited discovery because the plaintiffs’ requests concerned the youth-sports prohibition and their Fourteenth Amendment and Minnesota Constitution claims, while the pending injunction request concerned the social-gathering restriction and the First Amendment. The court also found no present need for discovery based only on an anticipated future injunction motion. Finally, it found the requests— including a deposition of a Minnesota Department of Health representative and requests for all documents relied on in prohibiting youth sports—too broad and prejudicial to the defendants.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and for Expedited Discovery. It referred the action to the magistrate judge to set a discovery schedule. The court expressly stated that, because the motion did not challenge the temporary prohibition on youth sports, it expressed no opinion on that ban’s validity.