Minnesota State College Student Association, Inc. v. Cowles

Background

Minnesota State College Student Association, Inc., doing business as LeadMN, represents students at Minnesota State’s community and technical colleges. LeadMN sued fifteen members of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Board of Trustees in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows claims against state officials for violating federal rights.

LeadMN proposed increasing its student fee from $0.35 to $0.61 per credit, a roughly 74% increase. It alleged that the trustees knew LeadMN used student-fee funds for speech, assembly, and public advocacy, and that they opposed LeadMN’s advocacy. The Finance Committee voted against recommending the increase, and the full Board did not vote on it.

LeadMN asserted three First Amendment theories: retaliation for its protected advocacy; an improper content- or viewpoint-based restriction on speech and assembly; and the lack of standards governing the Board’s review of fee requests. LeadMN also sought an order requiring the Board to collect and distribute the increased fee, along with declaratory and injunctive relief. It separately moved for a preliminary injunction.

Motion to Dismiss

The court applied the standard for a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint plausibly states a legal claim, and considered the jurisdictional challenge under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s authority to hear a claim.

The court allowed LeadMN’s First Amendment-retaliation claim to proceed. It held that LeadMN plausibly alleged protected activity because it engaged in public speech and advocacy directed at the Board and others. It also held that LeadMN plausibly alleged a retaliatory motive because the trustees allegedly knew about LeadMN’s advocacy, were dissatisfied with it, coordinated opposition to the fee request, and communicated in ways suggesting retaliation. Although the court considered the question closer, it also found plausible LeadMN’s theory that the Board’s refusal could cause a reasonable organization or person to censor or reduce protected activity to improve the chances of obtaining a fee increase.

The court rejected LeadMN’s content- and viewpoint-discrimination theory. It reasoned that the Board had not restricted LeadMN’s access to the existing student-fee fund; it had only refused to increase the amount of funding. The court also stated that the First Amendment does not generally require the government to provide as much funding as an organization wants to support its speech.

The court rejected LeadMN’s challenge based on the absence of standards governing fee requests. Under one possible approach, that theory failed because LeadMN had not shown any restriction on access to the existing student-fee fund. Under another approach, the court noted that LeadMN identified no case applying a facial First Amendment challenge to school officials’ decisions to establish, retain, or change the amount of student fees.

Eleventh Amendment and Fee Relief

The Eleventh Amendment generally protects a state and its officials from certain suits in federal court. An exception allows suits seeking prospective relief to stop an ongoing violation of federal law, but the court held that the exception did not apply to LeadMN’s request for an order requiring the Board to collect and distribute a new pool of student fees.

The court concluded that the requested fee-distribution order was not purely prospective relief to stop unlawful conduct. Instead, it would require collection and payment of the increased fees. The court also rejected LeadMN’s argument that immunity did not apply because students, rather than the state, would provide the money. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred LeadMN’s request to enjoin the defendants from refusing to collect and distribute a fee of at least $0.61 per credit.

Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is an order issued before final judgment to preserve the parties’ positions while the case continues. The court considered the likelihood of success, irreparable harm, the balance of harms, and the public interest.

The court denied LeadMN’s motion. It found that LeadMN did not have a fair chance of prevailing on its retaliation claim because LeadMN alleged that it continued its public advocacy and because the evidence of retaliatory motive was weak at that stage. The court also found that LeadMN had not shown likely irreparable harm, noting its allegations that it continued the same advocacy and its delay in filing the case and seeking an injunction. The other factors did not change the result.

Disposition

The court ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. It was denied as to LeadMN’s First Amendment-retaliation claim and granted in all other respects. The action was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction insofar as LeadMN sought to require collection and distribution of a fee of at least $0.61 per credit. LeadMN’s motion for a preliminary injunction was DENIED. Judge Eric C. Tostrud directed that judgment be entered accordingly.