Let Them Play MN v. Walz

Background

Minnesota allowed organized youth sports to continue under Executive Order 21-01 and related Minnesota Department of Health guidance, but generally required face coverings during sports activities and imposed limits or recommendations concerning spectators. The plaintiffs were Let Them Play MN, a nonprofit corporation, and anonymous youth athletes, parents, and coaches. They claimed that the restrictions violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and similar provisions of the Minnesota Constitution.

The plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction—an extraordinary order intended to preserve the situation until the case could be decided—that would prevent the defendants from enforcing the restrictions. They also requested permission to conduct expedited discovery, including document requests, interrogatories, and depositions before the normal discovery schedule.

Jurisdictional issues

The court declined to decide at that stage whether any individual defendant lacked the necessary connection to enforcement of the challenged rules for purposes of the exception allowing certain suits against state officials. The defendants had not fully briefed that issue and said they would seek dismissal on immunity grounds.

The court explained that the Eleventh Amendment barred a federal court from ordering state officials to comply with state law. Because the plaintiffs’ claims under the Minnesota Constitution sought that kind of relief, the court stated that those claims would need to be brought in state court. The order, however, ultimately ruled on the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary relief and expedited discovery rather than entering a separate dismissal disposition for those claims.

Preliminary-injunction analysis

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs had to show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without an injunction, that the balance of harms favored them, and that the public interest supported relief. The court addressed the plaintiffs’ equal-protection, substantive-due-process, and procedural-due-process theories.

For equal protection, the court found that plaintiffs had not shown that youth sports were similarly situated in all relevant respects to professional or collegiate sports. The court relied on differences in the organizations’ ability to control conduct, impose isolation requirements, conduct testing, and employ medical personnel. It also found that sports differed from other activities because sports commonly involve close gatherings, physical exertion, and increased exhalation.

The court further concluded that rational-basis review likely applied because plaintiffs had not identified a fundamental constitutional right to participate in organized youth sports without restrictions, and age-based differences do not automatically receive heightened review. Under rational-basis review, a policy is upheld if it is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. The court found that limiting COVID-19 transmission was a legitimate interest and that the state had a reasonable basis for believing that youth sports posed transmission risks. The court therefore found that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their equal-protection claim.

The court also found that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their substantive-due-process claim because they had not identified a fundamental right to participate in youth sports without face coverings or to have more than one spectator at sporting events. The court stated that the rational basis supporting the equal-protection analysis also defeated the substantive-due-process theory.

For procedural due process, the court found that plaintiffs had not identified a protected liberty or property interest in participating in youth sports without the challenged restrictions or having additional spectators. It also concluded that the restrictions were generally applicable policy rules, rather than individualized decisions requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court stated that making the policies publicly available supplied all the process required for these generally applicable rules.

The court acknowledged that plaintiffs had submitted credible evidence and good-faith concerns that face coverings could cause breathing problems, dizziness, vision problems, collisions, or other injuries during high-intensity sports. But it held that this evidence showed a policy disagreement, not a likely constitutional violation. The court also found that plaintiffs had not shown a specific and immediate injury attributable to the state requirements, particularly because private sports facilities could impose their own face-covering rules even if an injunction issued.

Finally, the court found that the balance of harms and the public interest did not favor an injunction. It credited the defendants’ interest in limiting COVID-19 transmission and concluded that the restrictions had a rational basis and were recommended by public-health experts.

Expedited discovery

The court denied expedited discovery. It found that plaintiffs had not shown a need to develop the record before seeking a preliminary injunction because the parties had already created a relatively substantial record without discovery. The court also found that the proposed discovery was extremely broad, lacked limits on the topics to be explored, did not identify which defendants would be deposed, and did not identify the information plaintiffs hoped to obtain. The court concluded that the request appeared to seek an early start to ordinary discovery rather than specific, limited information needed to proceed.

Disposition

The court denied plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Discovery. The order states that the motion was denied in all respects and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.