On Sept. 5, Hennepin County District Court Judge Joseph Klein again issued a temporary injunction barring the City of Minneapolis from implementing its Minneapolis 2040 Plan until it has “completed an appropriate and properly conducted” environmental review. Per the terms of the order, within 60 days the city is to “immediately cease all present action in furtherance of the 2040 Plan,” and revert to the Minneapolis 2030 Comprehensive Plan in the meantime.
As brief background, in 2018, a group of nonprofits sued to bar the city from implementing the 2040 Plan, arguing that the city had failed to comply with the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) because it did not consider the environmental impact of that plan. The city responded by arguing that no environmental review was necessary because MERA did not apply to comprehensive plans, but failed to offer any evidence rebutting plaintiffs’ assertion that environmental harm would, in fact, result from the plan’s implementation.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court held that MERA did apply to the 2040 Plan, and found that plaintiffs had proved their claims of environmental harm without any meaningful rebuttal from the city. The court then issued a temporary injunction, barring implementation of the 2040 Plan, which the city promptly appealed.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals held in favor of plaintiffs on their argument that MERA did apply to the 2040 Plan and also found that an injunction was an appropriate remedy, but held that the injunction issued by the court contained insufficient findings of fact and analysis. These instructions from the Court of Appeals laid the basis for the current order from Judge Klein.
In the new 46-page order finding for the plaintiffs, Judge Klein again ruled that a temporary injunction against the city was an appropriate remedy, at one point describing plaintiffs’ case that environmental harm would flow from the 2040 Plan’s intended population densification as “lengthy, detailed, compelling, and unrebutted.”
What happens next will likely be a subject of much speculation. One matter not in doubt: the city has already said it plans to appeal the new order. Beyond that, questions abound.
Will Judge Klein feel constrained to stay the new injunction pending this latest appeal? What impact will an environmental review, newly commissioned by the city, have on this case? Will the city once again try to sidestep the court process by having the state legislature nullify the lawsuit, as it attempted this past legislative session (see Hill & Lake Press, June 2023)? And, assuming plaintiffs prevail again on appeal, what would a revised 2040 Plan look like after “an appropriate and properly conducted” environmental review?
