Allan v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

The plaintiffs challenged policies used by the Minnesota Department of Human Services at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program during the COVID-19 pandemic. The challenged pandemic measures included suspending in-person visits with outside visitors, suspending spiritual programming involving outside attendees, and restricting interactions among units at the Moose Lake facility.

Before the pandemic, the program recognized spiritual groups under Policy 420-5300. The policy allowed regular spiritual gatherings, subject to requirements involving group recognition, spiritual resource volunteers, controlled items, and facility safety. The program later restored visits and other operations as pandemic conditions changed. The defendants stated that COVID-specific restrictions on visitors and movement had been lifted and that the pre-pandemic status quo had been restored.

The operative complaint alleged that the pandemic-era restrictions violated the Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. A separate claim concerning tobacco restrictions had previously been dismissed by stipulation and was not at issue in this order.

Arguments and analysis

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims were moot. A claim is moot when changed circumstances have already provided the requested relief, leaving no live dispute for the court to decide. The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs were improperly attempting to raise new claims in their response to the motion.

The plaintiffs did not dispute that their central challenges to the COVID-19 restrictions had become moot. They instead argued that three policies still warranted prospective relief: the minimum size for recognition of a spiritual group, video visiting by spiritual resource volunteers, and live-streaming.

The court held that these three challenges were not properly presented in the operative complaint. The complaint focused on restoring spiritual gatherings and outside spiritual leaders after the March 13, 2020 restrictions. It did not allege that the pre-pandemic version of Policy 420-5300 was unlawful, and it did not clearly challenge the minimum group-size requirement, video visits, or live-streaming.

The court also addressed the plaintiffs’ argument that the six-person group-size requirement had changed because the requirement was now measured within one facility rather than across the Moose Lake and St. Peter facilities. The court found that existing spiritual groups had not been disbanded for falling below six members, that testimony about the requirement was not an official statement of department policy, and that the current policy allowed consideration of groups smaller than six. The court further held that this allegation had not been raised clearly in the operative complaint or through a request to amend it.

Ruling

The court concluded that the main dispute was moot because the pandemic and related restrictions had subsided. It also held that the additional challenges raised in opposition to summary judgment were distinct from the claims in the operative complaint. The court expressly declined to decide whether the program’s existing spiritual-group policies complied with the Constitution or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

The court granted the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety and ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.