Opinion ID: 1891385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Constitutional Status of the University.

Text: The University of Minnesota is a constitutional corporation, State ex rel. University of Minnesota v. Chase, 175 Minn. 259, 265, 220 N.W. 951, 954 (1928). This status grants the university much independence within the scope of its function. See, State ex rel. Peterson v. Quinlivan, 198 Minn. 65, 268 N.W. 858 (1936). This power given to the university is separate and complete and is, by necessity, denied to the legislature. This is not to say that the university is above the law. The Board of Regents is not the [ruler] of an independent province or beyond the lawmaking power of the legislature. State ex rel. University of Minnesota v. Chase, 175 Minn. 266, 220 N.W. 954. The power of the university is limited by the terms of its charter, the provisions of the state and Federal constitutions, and Federal statutes. If it refuses to perform any of the duties imposed upon it by law, it may be subject to mandamus. See, Gleason v. University of Minnesota, 104 Minn. 359, 116 N.W. 650 (1908). Historically, the grant of power to the university came in two steps. The original charter of the university was enacted in 1851. L.1851, c. 3. Its central purpose was to create a corporation. Among other things it declared that the government of this University shall be vested in a Board of twelve Regents, L.1851, c. 3, § 4. The university functioned under the act of 1851 until a state constitution was adopted in 1857. What was then art. 8, § 3, [1] of the state constitution perpetuated to the university all the rights, immunities, franchises and endowments heretofore granted or conferred. By so doing, the Board of Regents of the University was invested with a power of management in the area of the governing of the duties of the university of which the legislature could not deprive them, subject to the right of the people to amend or repeal the constitution. The purpose of this     was to put the management of the greatest state educational institution beyond the dangers of vacillating policy, ill informed or careless meddling and partisan ambition that would be possible in the case of management by either legislature or executive, chosen at frequent intervals and for functions and because of qualities and activities vastly different from those which qualify for the management of an institution of higher education. 175 Minn. 274, 220 N.W. 957. Thus, [t]he whole power to govern the university    was put in the regents by the people. So no part of it can be put elsewhere but by the people themselves. 175 Minn. 274, 220 N.W. 957. What the Board of Regents may do, the legislature may not.