Let Them Play MN v. Walz

Background

Let Them Play MN, a nonprofit corporation, and several parents and minors challenged Minnesota restrictions on youth sports adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The challenged measures included:

- A temporary ban on organized youth sports under Executive Order 20-99; - Requirements that youth-sports participants generally wear face coverings; and - Quarantine rules that plaintiffs said were unfairly applied to young people and youth athletes.

The amended complaint asserted three claims: that the restrictions violated the federal Equal Protection Clause; that they violated federal due-process rights; and that they violated equal-protection and due-process rights under the Minnesota Constitution. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorney’s fees. The court noted that plaintiffs abandoned their federal due-process claims at the hearing after not responding to defendants’ merits argument concerning those claims.

Eleventh Amendment and jurisdiction

The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred several categories of claims. It dismissed the claims against the Minnesota Department of Health, a state agency. It also dismissed claims seeking compensatory and nominal damages against the individual defendants in their official capacities because those claims were treated as claims against the State of Minnesota. In addition, the court dismissed the claim under the Minnesota Constitution because a federal court generally cannot order state officials to comply with state law.

After those rulings, only federal constitutional claims seeking declaratory or injunctive relief remained. The court then considered whether those claims presented an ongoing case or controversy, as required for federal-court jurisdiction.

Mootness

The court concluded that the remaining claims were moot. Youth sports had resumed before this action was filed, so the temporary ban did not present a current injury or a real and immediate threat of future injury. Governor Walz later rescinded the statewide youth-sports face-covering requirement. The Minnesota Legislature also terminated the peacetime emergency that had supplied the legal authority for the executive orders, causing the challenged quarantine rules to lose their legal effect.

The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the case remained live because defendants had voluntarily stopped the challenged conduct. It found no indication that the restrictions were lifted to avoid judicial review and emphasized that the Legislature’s termination of the emergency, rather than defendants alone, removed the legal authority for the challenged orders. The court also declined to assume that Minnesota would reimpose the same restrictions based on future developments in the pandemic.

Merits discussion

Although the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction required dismissal, the court briefly addressed the equal-protection claim. It held that plaintiffs had not plausibly identified a similarly situated group that received more favorable treatment. The court explained that adult organized sports had generally been subject to the same restrictions as youth organized sports and that organized and unorganized youth sports were not shown to be similar in all relevant respects.

The court also held that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the restrictions failed rational-basis review, a deferential test under which a measure is upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Limiting the spread of COVID-19 was a legitimate government interest, and the court found a reasonably conceivable basis for believing that sustained contact and physical exertion increased the risk of transmission during youth sports. The plaintiffs’ competing factual account and allegations of subjective bias did not overcome that conclusion.

Disposition

The court ordered that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was GRANTED and that the action was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.