Association for Government Accountability v. Simon

Background

The Association for Government Accountability, 14 Association members, and two of their children sued Steve Simon, Minnesota’s Secretary of State, and David Maeda, the Director of Elections for the State of Minnesota. The defendants were sued in both their official and individual capacities.

The plaintiffs asserted one claim under the federal Drivers Protection and Privacy Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721 et seq. They alleged that Minnesota law required the defendants to violate the DPPA by using information from state driver’s-license databases in state-sponsored voter-registration efforts. Minnesota participates in the Electronic Registration Information Center, a multistate organization that receives driver’s-license and voter-registration information and provides reports, including information about people who may be eligible to register but are not registered. Minnesota uses that information to contact people and encourage voter registration.

The plaintiffs sought actual or liquidated damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs, and attorney’s fees. After the defendants moved to dismiss, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction barring the defendants from disclosing private driver information.

Motion to Dismiss

The court applied the rule governing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. At this stage, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and considers whether the complaint plausibly shows an entitlement to relief, while disregarding legal conclusions presented as factual allegations.

The DPPA generally prohibits using personal information from motor-vehicle records for purposes the statute does not permit. The statute lists several permitted uses, including use by a government agency in carrying out its functions. The plaintiffs argued that encouraging eligible but unregistered people to register to vote was not a permitted use.

The court focused on the DPPA’s limits on suits against states and state agencies. The statute defines the persons who may be sued under its civil-enforcement provision but excludes a state or its agencies. The statute separately authorizes a civil penalty imposed by the Attorney General against a state department of motor vehicles with a policy or practice of substantial noncompliance.

Official-Capacity Claims

The plaintiffs argued that a legal doctrine allowing suits against state officials for prospective relief permitted their claims for an injunction against the defendants in their official capacities. Relying on prior authority, the court held that the DPPA’s separate civil-penalty provision against state motor-vehicle departments precluded prospective-relief suits against state officials acting in their official capacities. The official-capacity claims therefore failed.

Individual-Capacity Claims

The plaintiffs argued that they could seek injunctive relief against the defendants individually because the defendants had acted beyond their legal authority in approving or implementing contracts that allegedly violated the DPPA. The court held that the complaint did not identify specific actions by either defendant that were beyond the authority granted by Minnesota law. Instead, the complaint challenged the Minnesota statutes and policies themselves.

The court also held that the claims were barred by state sovereign immunity because the State, rather than the individual defendants, was the real party with an interest in the dispute. The plaintiffs challenged Minnesota’s policies and statutory scheme, not conduct independent of those policies. The court concluded that the claims therefore failed as a matter of law.

Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is an early court order requiring or prohibiting conduct while a case continues. The court explained that because the requested injunction would have stopped implementation of a duly enacted Minnesota law, the plaintiffs had to show a substantial likelihood of success on their claims. Because the court concluded that the claims were barred by sovereign immunity, the plaintiffs could not meet that standard. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Disposition

The court ordered that the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was granted, the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction was denied, and the matter was dismissed with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered.