Save Lake Calhoun v. Strommen, A18-1007

943 N.W.2d 171

SAVE LAKE CALHOUN, Respondent,

v.Sarah STROMMEN, et al., Appellants.

A18-1007

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: May 13, 2020

OPINION

LILLEHAUG, Justice.

On January 18, 2018, the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (the Commissioner) issued an order changing the official name of a well-known Minneapolis lake from Lake Calhoun to Bde Maka Ska. The Commissioner invoked his authority under Minnesota Statutes § 83A.02 (1), (3) (2018) to do so. Another statute within chapter 83A prohibits changing a body of water’s name "which has existed for 40 years." Minn. Stat. § 83A.05, subd. 1 (2018). Respondent Save Lake Calhoun contends that, based on the 40-year limitation in section 83A.05, the name change was beyond the Commissioner’s authority under section 83A.02, and that the courts should so rule by issuing a writ of quo warranto. Appellants (collectively, the Commissioner) respond that the writ is not available or should be abolished, and that, in any event, the 40-year limitation does not apply to the Commissioner’s statutory authority to change the name of the lake.

We conclude that, in this case, the writ of quo warranto is an appropriate method to challenge the Commissioner’s authority. But we decline to issue the writ because the Commissioner has statutory authority to change the names of Minnesota lakes, including those with names existing for 40 years or more. Under Minnesota law, the body of water that was Lake Calhoun is now Bde Maka Ska.

Therefore, we affirm the court of appeals in part, reverse in part, and remand.

FACTS

This case is about the legal name of a lake entirely located within the City of Minneapolis. Among the names by which Native people knew it was Bde Maka Ska. In the 1820s, white people began to call it Lake Calhoun, and eventually that became the official name of the lake. The name has been in existence for considerably more than 40 years.

In April 2015, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board passed a resolution to develop a master plan for the Chain of Lakes Regional Park, which includes the lake at issue. The plan, approved in 2017, proposed to change the official name of the lake from Lake Calhoun to Bde Maka Ska.

After approving the master plan, the park board directed its staff to circulate and forward to the Hennepin County Board, via filing with the county auditor, a petition to change the lake name signed by at least 15 registered voters. The idea seems to have been to initiate a name change under Minnesota Statutes §§ 83A.05 –.07 (2018), which grant county boards the authority to change the names of bodies of water, subject to Commissioner approval.

The petition was filed and presented to the county board. But the county attorney advised the board, citing section 83A.05, subdivision 1, that the board did not have the authority to change a lake "name which has existed for 40 years."

So, the county board took another tack. After public notice, public comment, and a public hearing, the county board passed Resolution No. 17-0489 on November 28, 2017, "recommend[ing]" that the Department of Natural Resources "take the steps necessary" to change the name from Lake Calhoun to Bde Maka Ska.

The county submitted the resolution and other supporting documents to the Commissioner. The Commissioner received comments supporting and opposing the name-change, including a petition from Save Lake Calhoun submitted on behalf of homeowners near the lake. After considering the submissions, and invoking his authority under Minnesota Statutes section 83A.02, paragraphs (1) and (3),¹ the Commissioner decided that it would "serve the public interest" to change the name of the lake. By order dated January 18, 2018, the Commissioner renamed it Bde Maka Ska.

In response, Save Lake Calhoun petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of certiorari. The court of appeals dismissed the petition because the Commissioner’s order was not a reviewable quasi-judicial decision. In re Proposed Renaming of Lake Calhoun , No. A18-0261, Order at 4 (Minn. App. filed Mar. 6, 2018).

On April 25, 2018, Save Lake Calhoun petitioned the Ramsey County District Court for a writ of quo warranto. Save Lake Calhoun argued that, because the Lake Calhoun name had existed for more than 40 years, the Commissioner had exceeded statutory authority by changing the name. The Commissioner moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to change venue. By order filed June 15, 2018, the district court denied the petition for a writ of quo warranto, reasoning that ongoing action was necessary to obtain the writ and that there was no such action.

Save Lake Calhoun appealed. The court of appeals reversed the district court and directed that judgment be entered for Save Lake Calhoun. See Save Lake Calhoun v. Strommen , 928 N.W.2d 377, 390 (Minn. App. 2019). The court determined that the writ of quo warranto was available because the Commissioner’s action was an ongoing exercise of power. Id. at 385–86. Reaching the merits of the case, the court concluded that the Commissioner lacked the authority to change a lake name in existence for more than 40 years. Id. at 388–89. The Commissioner sought review, and we granted it.

ANALYSIS

I.

The Minnesota Constitution, Article VI, Section 2, gives us "original jurisdiction in such remedial cases as are prescribed by law." This includes the power to issue ancient writs including, as relevant here, writs of quo warranto. Minn. Stat. § 480.04 (2018). Quo warranto is an available remedy to challenge official action not authorized by law. State ex rel. Graham v. Klumpp , 536 N.W.2d 613, 614 n.1 (Minn. 1995) (explaining that a writ of quo warranto is "designed to test whether a person exercising power is legally entitled to do so." (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Although we have original jurisdiction to issue the writ, in Rice v. Connolly , we instructed that petitions for the writ should be filed in the first instance in district court. 488 N.W.2d 241, 243–44 (Minn. 1992). Consistent with that instruction, Save Lake Calhoun commenced this quo warranto matter in the district court. The district court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We review such a dismissal de novo, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint—here, the petition—as true and construing all reasonable inferences in favor of Save Lake Calhoun. See Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A. , 851 N.W.2d 598, 606 (Minn. 2014).

The Commissioner argues in three respects that quo warranto is not—or should not be—available in this case. First, the Commissioner argues that Save Lake Calhoun cannot use a writ of quo warranto to challenge official misconduct. But Save Lake Calhoun’s petition alleges more than mere misconduct; it alleges that an official has acted without legal authority. State ex rel. Lommen v. Gravlin highlights this distinction. 209 Minn. 136, 295 N.W. 654, 655 (1941).

In Lommen , the plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of quo warranto to prevent the Commissioner of Administration from purchasing uniforms without competitive bidding. Id. at 654–55. We explained that a writ of quo warranto cannot be used as "preventive of, or remedy for, official misconduct and [may] not be employed to test the legality of the official action of public or corporate officers." Id. at 655 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). In that case, neither party questioned the official’s legal authority to purchase uniforms. Instead, the issue was whether the official could properly exercise that authority without using the competitive-bidding process.

By contrast, Save Lake Calhoun alleges that the Commissioner exceeded the statutory authority of the office, usurping the power held by others. A petition for a writ of quo warranto properly challenges this type of action because it concerns whether legal authority exists, not whether legal authority has been misused.

Second, the Commissioner, relying on the decision of the court of appeals in State ex rel. Sviggum v. Hanson , argues that a writ of quo warranto is not available because no ongoing action exists. 732 N.W.2d 312, 319–20 (Minn. App. 2007). Although Sviggum discussed the absence of ongoing action, its primary focus was on mootness. Id. at 322–23.

Sviggum arose out of a government shutdown. Id. at 315. Because the Legislature did not appropriate funds for necessary executive functions, a district court issued an order authorizing the finance commissioner to fund those functions. Id. Subsequently, the Legislature passed an appropriations bill that retroactively funded those same functions. Id. at 316. Because the Legislature’s bill was retroactive, it —not the district court order—funded the executive functions and effectively mooted the district court’s order. Id. at 323. Accordingly, the court of appeals dismissed the petition for lack of a case or controversy. Id. Sviggum is weak support for the Commissioner’s position here. This case is not moot; the Commissioner’s order remains in effect.

Our precedent confirms that quo warranto is an available remedy to challenge the type of conduct at issue in this case. In State ex rel. Palmer v. Perpich , 289 Minn. 149, 182 N.W.2d 182, 183 (1971), we considered the lieutenant governor’s statutory authority to call the senate to order and require each senator, when called, to present a certificate of election. See Minn. Stat. § 3.05 (2018). When calling the senate to order, the lieutenant governor rejected a valid certificate of election. Palmer , 182 N.W.2d at 183–84. We concluded that the lieutenant governor acted without legal authority, explaining that "[n]owhere do we find in our Constitution or our statutes any provision giving the lieutenant governor the right or power to determine who is eligible to be a member of the senate." Id. at 185–86. We all but issued the writ after concluding that the lieutenant governor had exceeded his statutory and constitutional...