Court Opinion

ID: 9657784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:37:58.689669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:48.394695
License: Public Domain

BRUCE C. STONE, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur completely in the result but respectfully write separately to record my view that the federal decision did not collaterally estop the litigants from pursuing relief under state constitutional principles.
At the state’s request, in federal court the challenges to the statute based on state law were dismissed without prejudice. Based on federal constitutional challenges, appellants’ federal claims later were dismissed on summary judgment.
The issue here, thus, is not whether the colleges are “pervasively sectarian” under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but rather whether any benefit derived by the colleges was purely “incidental and inconsequential” as defined in Americans United, under the state constitution.
Further, I would note my disagreement with the trial court holding that colleges are not “schools” within the meaning of Article 13, Section 2 of the Minnesota Constitution. It is scarcely reasonable to presume that the electorate that adopted Article 13 meant to permit colleges and universities to receive public funds for religious purposes.
Be that as it may, the benefit here was “incidental and inconsequential” and not unconstitutional.