Minnesota Supreme Court Hands Government Transparency Advocates Major Victory

By Max Nesterak, the Minnesota Reformer

February 4, 2021

The Minnesota Supreme Court recently handed a major victory to government transparency advocates, issuing a ruling that will make it easier for the public to sue state and local governments for failing to maintain and turn over public information.

“This ruling helps everyone who wants to find out more about what their government is doing,” said attorney Mahesha Subbaraman, who represented the plaintiff. “It lowers the barrier for ordinary Minnesotans to litigate and enforce their rights under the Data Practices Act.”

The case was brought by software engineer Tyler Halva against Minnesota State. Halva answered a call for proposals in 2015 to develop a new online registration system but never received a response to his pitch. He only found out he was passed over for another developer after submitting five separate data requests.

Halva also requested documents from Minnesota State that explained their decision to reject his proposal in favor of another. Minnesota State eventually produced some documents evaluating Halva’s proposal after he filed a complaint with the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings, but did not save a copy of his proposal they had highlighted.

At the heart of Halva’s case is whether individual citizens may sue for data that doesn’t exist under the Data Practices Act, which is typically cited in requesting public data that does exist. The court ruled the Data Practices Act covers data that should exist.

“It allows people to challenge the absence of data,” Halva said in an interview. “There wasn’t a good direction in the state of Minnesota on how to go about claiming injury when data does not exist.”

If people weren’t able to sue their government for data that should exist, it could incentivize governments to destroy records or not create them in the first place. That has already been a problem among some government agencies. For example, in 2016, the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office faced criticism for creating a policy of deleting emails after just 30 days. (Sheriff Dave Hutchinson changed the policy to delete emails after six months in 2019, shortly after he was elected.)

The decision also clarifies that people do not need to have a particularly detailed explanation for why they are suing to get government data. Minnesota State fought against Halva’s claim, arguing it was “insufficiently pleaded,” and argued that he hadn’t provided enough detail about the damages caused to him.

The Supreme Court ruled, however, that people do not need to explain how they were hurt by not being provided data when they file a lawsuit. They need only show that the data was not provided.

“We are disappointed that the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled the courts below on our motion to dismiss the Minnesota Government Data Practices claim. We look forward to making our case as litigation proceeds,” Minnesota State spokesman Doug Anderson wrote in a statement.

The case was referred back to a lower court to decide if Halva is owed money for damages from Minnesota State for not having the document he requested.

(Disclosure: Tony Webster, a Reformer freelance contributor, submitted an amicus brief to the court in support of Halva’s case.)

The Minnesota Reformer is an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to keeping Minnesotans informed and unearthing stories other outlets can’t or won’t tell..