Lawsuit over Walz's pandemic powers will continue after state Supreme Court ruling

ST. PAUL — A holdover lawsuit from Minnesota’s pandemic peacetime emergency will go on after the state Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a key question about the governor’s authority remains unsettled.

The lawsuit brought by a group of citizens and aided by a conservative law firm challenged Gov. Tim Walz over his declaration of an emergency and over his use of that emergency to impose restrictions, including a mask mandate.

Justices decided that litigation over specific measures Walz took during COVID-19 is now moot, given that they’ve lapsed. But the high court said the governor’s use of the Emergency Management Act to justify his executive actions is still a relevant question.

It is a partial reversal of an earlier Court of Appeals decision, which had dismissed the claims.

“Given that the peacetime emergency and the consequent executive orders impacted every Minnesotan and the import of those decisions, the legal question of whether the act authorizes such actions is undoubtedly an issue of statewide significance,” Chief Justice Lorie Gildea wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court.

“We also conclude that this important legal issue should be decided now so that any lack of clarity can be settled before it is necessary for a governor to invoke the act again.”

The case was sent back to the Court of Appeals to decide whether the Emergency Management Act can be invoked during a public health emergency or if an “act of nature” is more narrow.

Gildea wrote that the question to be decided “is a straightforward one of statutory interpretation asking the court to decide the scope of the power the Legislature delegated to the governor in the act.”

Walz declared a peacetime emergency in March 2020 and it remained in place until July 2021. During that span, he issued dozens of executive orders that carried the force of law.

Walz and his attorneys have long argued that restricting public gatherings, limiting business operations and requiring mask use were important ways to contain the spread of COVID-19. His critics said he went too far and took unconstitutional actions. In state and federal cases, Walz largely held off the legal challenges during the height of the pandemic.

Republican state lawmakers have argued for curtailing executive authority but no major changes have occurred.