Judge Denies Bid to Decide Minnesota School Desegregation Case Without Trial, Sends 6-Year-Old Lawsuit to Appeals Court
Receive these stories directly to your email inbox. Subscribe to Newsletter.
A prominent case centered on school desegregation has the potential to proceed to trial, as a judge in Minneapolis declined to declare the mere existence of racially imbalanced schools as a violation of the education clause in the Minnesota Constitution. In denying the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, Judge Susan M. Robiner of Hennepin County District Court referred the case, Alejandro Cruz-Guzman vs. State of Minnesota, to the state Court of Appeals.
This case was initiated in 2015 by a group of parents from schools in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The plaintiffs allege that officials have failed to provide a satisfactory education to children due to policies that have resulted in racial and socioeconomic imbalance in schools. Some of these policies include the first interdistrict open-enrollment law in the country, which allows families to enroll their children in suburban schools, as well as the first charter school law.
Judge Robiner criticized the plaintiffs’ argument in a 25-page order, stating that they did not address the issue of causation and that their claim of segregation being an education clause violation is insufficient. The plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that they did not need to prove that the state caused or enabled segregation, or that racial imbalance alone deprives students of a satisfactory education. Previous cases on integration have focused on whether segregation is a result of government action or inaction, or if it occurred naturally.
Judge Robiner acknowledged that there are limited legal precedents regarding the education clause, and she expects an appeal of her ruling. If the appeals court agrees with her reasoning, the case, which has been ongoing for six years, will proceed to a lengthy fact-finding process with a trial scheduled to begin in October.
If the lawsuit is successful, Minnesota charter schools will be required for the first time to change their enrollment practices to attract families of different races and socioeconomic statuses. The state’s charter law currently mandates enrollment through a blind lottery system to prevent discrimination in independent public schools.
In 2016, three high-performing charter schools in the Twin Cities joined the case as defendant-intervenors. Two of these schools primarily serve Black students, and they argue that parents choosing culturally affirming schools should not be considered segregation.
This is the second time that the case has been referred to higher courts. In 2018, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the state’s argument that the case was not within the court’s jurisdiction and sent it back to Judge Robiner’s courtroom. Following that, both parties engaged in closed-door mediation throughout 2019. Last winter, the plaintiffs’ attorneys and the state expressed near settlement, pending the passage of several laws by the state Legislature. The charter school defendants, for unclear reasons, were excluded from the mediation and have opposed the proposed settlement.
Advocates of the settlement failed to secure more than an informational hearing during the legislative session, as they were unable to introduce new bills. Critics pointed out that the proposed settlement resembled an agreement reached in the late 1990s in a desegregation suit led by the same plaintiffs’ attorneys. That settlement involved busing students from low-income neighborhoods in Minneapolis to nearby suburbs, but subsequent research suggested that these students did not experience significant academic improvement.
Subscribe to Newsletter to have stories like these delivered directly to your email inbox.