A Ramsey County District judge paused the social equity applicant pre-approval lottery set for tomorrow, November 25, 2024. How did we get here and what’s next?
Judge Stephen L. Smith of Ramsey County District Court heard consolidated arguments for three lawsuits involving eight plaintiffs who were verified social equity applicants denied entry into the social equity pre-approval lottery originally set for tomorrow. Between the three lawsuits, the eight plaintiffs were denied for various reasons. In sum, Plaintiffs asked the court to issue an order that OCM improperly denied Plaintiffs’ right to due process because they did not get an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in their applications. At the same time, Plaintiffs made a motion – a procedure when you ask the court to do something – for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to stop the lottery from taking place tomorrow.
OCM argued that their decision to reject an applicant to the pre-approval process was final and there’s no administrative appeal process for that decision. According to OCM, an aggrieved applicant’s sole way of getting a court to review the denial was through a writ of certiorari, which sparks a review by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. (To understand this, you have to think of OCM’s denial as a quasi-judicial determination. OCM reviewed the facts and applications and then compared that info to the law to reach a decision as to whether an applicant is rejected or moves forward. In the eyes of the law, this review was equivalent to a district court deciding a case; hence, the need for any review to be done by the Court of Appeals. It has to do with good ol’ separation of powers between the equal branches of the government, if you want to get wonky about it.)
In sum, Plaintiffs argued that the rejections were not a final decision and that the statute requires OCM to provide applicants and opportunity to cure defects in their applications.
In the end, Judge Smith gave a verbal decision from the bench “staying” the lottery from happening tomorrow to allow Plaintiffs the opportunity for a review at Court of Appeals through a writ of certiorari. This may be a double edged sword, because the time it takes to go through that process could make the pre-approval process irrelevant. It’ll butt up against the timing for the regular license application.
Contrary to some initial information, Judge Smith did not grant Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO; instead, he issued a “stay,” which is a legal term to stop or pause something. He could not have granted the motion for a TRO, because to succeed with a TRO, the plaintiff has to establish that she has high likelihood of success for her lawsuit. Plaintiffs here could not do that, because the district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ cases.
This ruling is problematic, in my opinion. Judge Smith did not provide any legal authority to issue a stay for the lottery, and we know he does not believe he has the authority to do so. So, where does the authority to “stay” the lottery come from? I’m not sure. Hopefully, the court will issue a written order outlining such or, alternatively, OCM could explore their own options for appeal to reverse the stay on the lottery.
