Citing a lack of legal standing, the Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Minneapolis homeowner who alleged her property taxes were being illegally used by Minneapolis Public Schools because of a provision in its teachers contract which included protections for minority educators.

Judicial Watch, an education foundation based in Washington, D.C., brought the "complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief" on behalf of Deborah Jane Clapp in Hennepin County District Court in 2022, which argued that a provision in the 2021-2023 contract between Minneapolis Public Schools and the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers Local 59 was unconstitutional.

The provision, Article 15 in the contract which is still in effect, made teachers from "underrepresented" populations exempt from seniority-based layoffs and reassignments and also prioritized them for reinstatements over teachers with more seniority who were not a member of minority populations. The suit listed Rochelle Cox, the former interim superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools, the district and the Minneapolis school board as defendants. It sought to declare Article 15 and any use of public funds implementing it as illegal.

The Supreme Court opinion, written by Justice Karl Procaccini, deals strictly with the question of when a taxpayer has a legal standing to challenge governmental action. The Supreme Court recently looked at the same issue in a case involving the Minnesota Voters Alliance, which challenged a new state law that restored voting rights to felons. In that decision, the court ruled you do not have the right to sue simply because you disagree with the way taxpayer money is being used by a government entity.

A statement from the school district said, "Minneapolis Public Schools is pleased with the court's decision in this matter and we thank the partners who joined us in the appeal."

Marcia Howard, president of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers and 26-year district veteran, said the contract language was about equality in their ranks and the benefit of students in Minneapolis schools.

"We worked so hard, that negotiating team, to put that language on the book so that underrepresented members could be safe from layoffs," Howard said. "Frankly, we have been so proud to work shoulder-to-shoulder with the school district to defend that language from attacks by national MAGA groups like Judicial Watch."

In a statement, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called the ruling "beyond the pale."

"Minneapolis Public Schools is unabashedly discriminating against teachers based on their race, and the school district is using taxpayer dollars to do so," Fitton said. "The Minnesota Supreme Court's disgraceful decision not only threatens teachers' jobs but also prevents Minnesota taxpayers (present and future) from holding their government to account. This woke, racially discriminatory contract cannot stand."

Fitton added that Judicial Watch will ask the Trump administration "to investigate this blatant civil rights violation and take all necessary steps to ensure teachers do not lose their jobs because of their race."

Clapp sought to stop the school district "from implementing and spending public money" on the provision protecting racial minorities, alleging that it violated Minnesota's equal protection guarantee. That guarantee states that no citizen "shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers." Clapp argued that because local property taxes fund "approximately 31%" of the school district's costs, this violation amounted to illegal use of taxpayer funds.

The Supreme Court opinion does not express any findings on the merits of Clapp's claims, reasoning instead that a taxpayer does not have the legal standing to stop a governmental agency from implementing a practice simply because they "do not agree" with it. The court draws a differentiation between this sort of legal action and a lawsuit where "an unlawful disbursement" of taxpayer funds is the central dispute.

Ultimately, the court ruled the issue Clapp is seeking relief over — the legality of giving preferential treatment to minority staff members working for Minneapolis Public Schools in an attempt to correct their historical underrepresentation in the district — is a larger concern than the "merely incidental" fact that property taxes help fund the school district.

The suit was initially dismissed in Hennepin County by Judge Christian Sande for lacking taxpayer standing. The Court of Appeals overturned that decision in 2023 with current Supreme Court Justice Theodora Gaïtas writing the nonprecedential opinion that Clapp had presented an "adequate basis for taxpayer standing."

That Court of Appeals opinion was issued before the state high court issued its opinion in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Hunt, which narrowed the legal standing for taxpayers to bring lawsuits against the government in Minnesota. Procaccini's opinion dismissing Clapp's lawsuit relies heavily on that precedent.

"We resolve this case based on standing," Procaccini wrote. "Guided by our recent clarification of the requirements for taxpayer standing in Hunt, we conclude that the central dispute in this case does not involve unlawful disbursement of public funds. For that reason, Clapp lacks taxpayer standing, and we reverse the court of appeals."

Signing on to Procaccini's opinion were Chief Justice Natalie Hudson and Justices Sarah Hennesy, Anne McKeig, Gordon Moore and Paul Thissen. Gaïtas didn't participate in the consideration or decision of the case.

Mara Klecker of the Minnesota Star Tribune contributed to this story.