Cited by

We have recognized that we can “interpret our state constitution to afford greater protections of individual civil and political rights than does the federal constitution.”

(citing Anderson v. City of St.

we discern no persuasive reason to follow such a departure.”

The decisions of our supreme court have “established a definite baseline for how [to] approach the task of interpreting a provision of the Minnesota Constitution, especially when there is an identical or substantially similar federal counterpart.”

t has determined that the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception is “ ‘limited to the situation where two elements are combined: (1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.’ ” (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 , 96 S.Ct.

(interpreting protections under these provisions as co-extensive in the absence of “ ‘radical’ or ‘sharp’ departures” of the United States Supreme Court from its precedent); (recognizing general principle favoring uniformity with the federal constitution).

When language in the Minnesota Constitution is ambiguous, we seek the meaning of the language “by looking beyond the language for other in-dicia of intent.”

(interpreting protections under these provisions as co-extensive in the absence of “ ‘radical’ or ‘sharp’ departures” of the United States Supreme Court from its precedent); (recognizing general principle favoring uniformity with the federal constitution).

Although we cannot grant relief from the injunction in this case, we have recognized that mootness is a flexible doctrine, and we will not dismiss a matter as moot if the case "implicates issues that are capable of repetition, yet likely to evade review,”

The capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception may apply if “ ‘(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.’ ” (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 , 96 S.Ct.

Our supreme court has cited the Weinstein elements with approval and stated, in addition, that the court will not deem a case moot if the case is “functionally justiciable” and presents an important public issue “of statewide significance that should be decided immediately.” -22 (Minn.2005)

“Looking to the state constitution as an independent basis for individual rights is a task we approach ‘with restraint and some delicacy,’ especially when the right at stake is guaranteed by identical or substantially similar language in the federal constitution.” ().

Generally, we "favor[] uniformily with the federal constitution.”

But when we apply rational basis review under art. I, § 2 of the Minnesota Constitution, we have sometimes applied a “higher standard.” (Tomlja-novich, J., dissenting) (likening Minnesota’s approach to rational basis review to “mid-level” scrutiny).