Housing First Minn. v. City of Corcoran and Housing First Minn. v. City of Dayton
What's at Stake
When a court rules that an issue is a “political question,” that issue becomes “nonjusticiable.” In other words, courts close their doors to political questions, even when an injured plaintiff seeks relief that a court could provide. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Minnesota filed an amicus brief in the Minnesota Supreme Court arguing that the Court should narrow, or at a minimum, not expand, the political question doctrine under the Minnesota Constitution. The brief urges the Court to preserve the justiciability of legal issues and thus ensure that provisions of the state Constitution are not just words on paper but meaningful guarantees for the people of Minnesota.
Summary
Housing First, a trade organization representing housing-sector businesses, sued the Cities of Corcoran and Dayton in 2021 over collecting allegedly excessive building permit fees in violation of Minnesota regulations. Following a separate appeal, the trial court held that Housing First lacked a “cause of action” required to sue under Minnesota’s Declaratory Judgment Act. The trial court also held that even if Housing First had a cause of action, the case presented a “nonjusticiable political question” that prevented the court from weighing in. The Court of Appeals affirmed the first ruling but declined to address the second. Housing First then appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which will address both questions.
The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Minnesota filed an amicus brief arguing that the Minnesota courts should apply a narrow, state-specific version of the political question doctrine. Our brief contends that the Minnesota Supreme Court has already developed a version of the doctrine narrowly confined to cases where (1) the people have retained power over an issue or (2) the Minnesota Constitution expressly delegates power to a different branch of government. Neither condition exists here. The authority to evaluate municipal fees is not one of the very few retained by the people, and the Minnesota Constitution has nothing to say about such fees. Even if it did, the Legislature has delegated that power to an executive agency. Expanding the political question doctrine to this case would undermine federal and state administrative law and threaten to take state action out of courts’ purview whenever that action is taken by an administrative agency.
In our brief, we also argue that the doctrine should be narrowed. The federal political question doctrine is based on limits that Article III of the U.S. Constitution places on the federal judiciary. Nothing in federal precedent suggests, let alone commands, that state courts should develop political question doctrines under which they refuse to address questions arising under their own state laws. Since Minnesota’s constitutional text and existing case law counsel apply the doctrine narrowly and the Minnesota Constitution makes judicial vindication of rights a priority, the Court should narrow, or at least not expand, the doctrine.
Legal Documents
-
10/02/2026
ACLU and ACLU-MN Brief of Amicus Curiae
Date Filed: 10/02/2026
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Affiliate: Minnesota