Originally published in the July 2024 issue of Bench & Bar of Minnesota Environmental Law Update, Minnesota State Bar Association.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals overturned an injunction on the City of Minneapolis’ 2040 Comprehensive Plan on May 13, 2024. State by Smart Growth Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis, No. A23-1382, 2024 WL 2118957 (Minn. Ct. App. May 13, 2024) (Smart Growth III). The district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for the imposition of an amended injunction, on September 5, 2023. The amended injunction enjoined the city from implementing any of the residential portion of the 2040 Plan until the city completed “an appropriate and properly conducted” environmental-impact statement. The injunction also required the city to revert to the residential development portions of the 2030 Plan and corresponding land use ordinances. The Court of Appeals decision is the third and latest appeal in this lengthy challenge to Minneapolis’ 2040 Plan.
After the Plan’s passage in 2018, three groups (collectively referred to as “Smart Growth”) sued the City, arguing the Plan could cause environmental harm and arguing that the City needed to conduct an analysis under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) before implementing the Plan. The district court’s injunction followed a remand from the Minnesota Court of Appeals in December of 2022. See State by Smart Growth Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis, No. A22-0852, 2022 WL 17957328 (Minn. App. Dec. 27, 2022) (Smart Growth II). In that opinion, the Court of Appeals held that although the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Smart Growth, the record was insufficient to support the initial injunction. Id. at *6.
A court may issue an injunction under MERA if a plaintiff demonstrates: (1) that the requested relief is “necessary or appropriate to protect the air, water, land or other natural resources located within the state from pollution, impairment, or destruction,” and (2) that the requested relief “provides an adequate remedy without imposing unnecessary hardship on the enjoined party.” Minn. Stat. § 116B.07; Smart Growth III at *7.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that Smart Growth had the burden of demonstrating that the injunctive relief requested was necessary or appropriate to protect the environment and would not impose necessary hardship on the City of Minneapolis. The Court of Appeals also found that the district court improperly assigned the burden of proof to the city.
With the burden placed on Smart Growth, the Court of Appeals held that the record did not support the district court’s finding that reversion to the 2030 plan is necessary or appropriate to protect the environment. The court observed that the record lacked evidence to support a finding that reversion to the 2030 Plan would be better for the environment than ongoing implementation of the 2040 Plan. Moreover, the appellate court agreed with the city’s contention that an injunction forcing the city to revert to the 2030 Plan would cause unnecessary hardship, as it would force the city to be out of compliance with its obligations under the MLPA. By forcing the city to choose between compliance with MLPA and MERA, the district court abused its discretion. The appellate court concluded reversing the district court order and denying the motion. Smart Growth III, 2024 WL 2118957.
Featured Professionals
Professionals
612.492.7175
612.492.7437
