Case: Brayton v. Pawlenty

62-CV-09-11693 | Minnesota state trial court

Filed Date: Nov. 3, 2009

Closed Date: 2010

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On November 3, 2009, six Minnesota residents who qualify for payments under the Minnesota Supplemental Aid--Special Diet Program brought an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the State of Minnesota in the District Court of Minnesota, Second Judicial District, Ramsey County. Plaintiffs challenged the validity of reductions made by the executive to unexpended allotments of funds appropriated for the Special Diet Program for the 2010-2011 biennium; July 1, 2009 through June …

On November 3, 2009, six Minnesota residents who qualify for payments under the Minnesota Supplemental Aid--Special Diet Program brought an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the State of Minnesota in the District Court of Minnesota, Second Judicial District, Ramsey County. Plaintiffs challenged the validity of reductions made by the executive to unexpended allotments of funds appropriated for the Special Diet Program for the 2010-2011 biennium; July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011. The Governor authorized the cuts to to avoid deficit spending.

Plaintiffs claim that the reductions in allotments to the Special Diet Program violate the terms of the "unallotment statute", Minn. Stat. § 16A.152, subd. 4, and are unconstitutional as a violation of separation of powers.

On December 30, 2009, the District Court of Minnesota (Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin) enjoined Defendants from reducing the allotment to the Special Diet Program, retroactive to November 1, 2009, until further order of the court.

The parties stipulated to an expedited appeal of the district court's decision. On May 5, 2010, in a published opinion, the Minnesota Supreme Court (Chief Justice Eric L. Magnuson) affirmed the district court's decision, but not on the separation of powers argument. Rather, the Court ruled that the Governor's allotment reductions since July 2009 were not authorized by the unallotment statute, Minn. Stat. § 16A.152, subd. 4, because they were taken before the legislative and executive branches had enacted a balanced budget. The reductions were therefore voided. Ramsey County v. Pawlenty, 781 N.W. 2d 357 (Minn. 2010).

Summary Authors

Xin Chen (6/29/2011)

People


Judge(s)

Gearin, Kathleen (Minnesota)

Attorney for Defendant

Garry, John S. (Minnesota)

Gilbert, Alan I. (Minnesota)

Harrington, Jeffrey J. (Minnesota)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Carlson, Martin A. (Minnesota)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

62-CV-09-11693

Amended Order

Dec. 30, 2009

Dec. 30, 2009

Order/Opinion

2009 WL 2009

62-CV-09-11693

Order

Dec. 30, 2009

Dec. 30, 2009

Order/Opinion

2009 WL 2009

A10-64

Appellants' Brief

Minnesota state supreme court

Feb. 9, 2010

Feb. 9, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief

2009 WL 2009

A10-64

Brief of Amici Curiae Professors of Constitution Law and Separation of Powers

Minnesota state supreme court

Feb. 9, 2010

Feb. 9, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief

2009 WL 2009

A10-64

Brief of Amici Curiae Rep. Tom Emmer, [...]

Minnesota state supreme court

Feb. 9, 2010

Feb. 9, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief

2009 WL 2009

A10-64

Brief of Amici Curiae Common Cause, Minnesota and League of Women Voters Minnesota

Minnesota state supreme court

Feb. 23, 2010

Feb. 23, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief

A10-64

Respondents' Brief

Minnesota state supreme court

Feb. 23, 2010

Feb. 23, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief

2009 WL 2009

A10-64

Opinion (Minnesota Supreme Court)

Ramsey County v. Pawlenty

Minnesota state supreme court

May 5, 2010

May 5, 2010

Order/Opinion

781 N.W.2d 781

Docket

Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 2:25 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Minnesota

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 3, 2009

Closing Date: 2010

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs are participants in Minnesota's Special Diet Program whose benefitswerere terminated because of allotment reductions made by the state government.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Governor of the State of Minnesota, State

Commissioner, State

Commissioner (, State

Commissioner, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Unknown

Source of Relief:

Litigation