Minnesota Supreme Court hears lawsuit challenging Gov. Walz's COVID-19 emergency powers
ST. PAUL, Minn. — The Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday morning heard arguments Thursday challenging Gov. Tim Walz's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is just the latest of several lawsuits in recent years challenging the governor's emergency powers.
The Upper Midwest Law Center originally filed this lawsuit in 2020 on behalf of a number of residents, small business owners and churches arguing the governor's actions were an overreach of power.
The case bounced from Ramsey County Court to the Minnesota Court of Appeals before getting the hearing in front of the Minnesota Supreme Court.
RELATED: Investigators look into cause of fire that destroyed Lutsen Lodge
This case specifically challenges the statewide mask mandate requiring Minnesotans to wear masks in indoor public places.
The lawsuit argues only the state legislature has the power to make laws and Walz overstepped his power by issuing the mandate.
Walz's declaration of a peacetime emergency allowed for various COVID-19 mitigation measures to be implemented statewide, from fining businesses to banning residential evictions.
The trouble begins with interpretation. What's at stake is how to interpret a 1996 law called the Minnesota Emergency Management Act. It gives the governor peacetime emergency powers in a variety of scenarios.
A public health emergency is not listed among those scenarios. However, according to the governor in 2020, COVID-19 falls under the category of "Act of Nature."
He used that authority to take executive action, including a mask mandate.
Even if the mandate can't exactly be thrown out, the bottom line is that plaintiffs want to set a precedent — they want to set limitations on the governor's power.
State attorneys, though, say the law is clear.
"You have a situation where the governor has control of all the apparatus of state government, including legislative authority, and if that continues for months and months, that's a constitutional problem," said James Dickey from the Upper Midwest Law Center.
MORE NEWS: How independent monitor plans to oversee, implement Minneapolis police reforms
"The use of the word property here is not constrained in any other descriptor, so it means a full definition of property, including intangible property like people's income, and when people were hospitalized for COVID, they lost income," said Minnesota Solicitor General, Liz Kramer. "From what I could tell in today's hearing, the Supreme Court Justices seemed skeptical of the plaintiff's argument against the Governor."
One justice — who was appointed by the governor — recused himself from the case.
There is no timetable yet for a ruling.
