Cited by

A political question is one that is not ‘“appropriate or suitable for adjudication by a court.’” d 1, 7 (Minn. 2018) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)).

A political question is one that is not “appropriate or suitable for adjudication by a court.” Cruz-Guzman v. State , (quotation omitted).

go to the question of justiciability,” id., as do political questions, –10 (Minn. 2018).

d 1, 7 (Minn. 2018) (stating that when reviewing a motion to dismiss, an appellate court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and “construe[s] all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party” (quotation omitted)); see also In re Hennepin Cnty.

DECISION “The presence of a justiciable controversy is ‘essential to [a court’s] exercise of jurisdiction.’” ().

Following years of litigation and appeals, including a prior decision by our court holding that the claims are justiciable, Cruz-Guzman v. State (Cruz-Guzman I), as well as unsuccessful efforts to settle the claims, the district court denied the parents’ motion for partial summary judgment on their claim under the 3 Education Clause.

But I reject the majority’s musing that had we found section 609.165 unconstitutional, “ an effective judicial remedy may not have been possible.” That suggestion “is incompatible with the principle that where there is a right, there is a remedy.”

App. P. 103.03(i) (recognizing an immediate right to appeal from denial of a motion to dismiss when the district court certifies the question as important and doubtful); (“A district court order denying a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is generally not immediately appealable as of right .”).

for orders denying a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, government immunity, or the nonjoinder of necessary parties.” Cruz-Guzman v. State

“[T]he interpretation of the constitution is a purely legal issue that [an appellate court] reviews de novo.” Cruz- Guzman v. State

For example, the plaintiff asserted a right to equal protection based on article I, s ection 2, in conjunction with a right to an education based on article XIII, section 1.

We have appellate jurisdiction over “orders denying a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

The Minnesota Constitution protects the right of its people to “a general and uniform system of public schools” that are “thorough and efficient.” Minn. Const. art. XIII, § 1; (“We hold that education is a fundamental right under the state constitution”); 11 (Minn. 2018) (noting that Education Clause “imposes an explicit ‘duty’ on the Legislature” (quotation omitted) ).

App. P. 103.03(j); Cruz-Guzman v. State

–8 (Minn. 2018) (reviewing justiciability issue raised on interlocutory appeal as essential to jurisdiction).

(dismiss); Zutz v. Nelson , (judgment on the pleadings).

Cruz-Guzman v. State , (citing Contractors Edge Inc. v. City of Mankato , ).

Cruz-Guzman v. State , , 7 (Minn. 2018).

The supreme court granted a petition for further review and stayed the appeal pending its consideration of Cruz-Guzman v. State , which also raised a political-question issue in an Education Clause case.