Re: Expulsion Appeal File 22-04-E on behalf of W. M. from East Central Public Schools 2580.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A22-0546

Re: Expulsion Appeal File 22-04-E on behalf of W. M.
from East Central Public Schools 2580.

Filed February 21, 2023
Appeal dismissed
Johnson, Judge

Minnesota Department of Education
File No. 22-04-E

John P. Edison, Marcus B. Jardine, Rupp, Anderson, Squires, Waldspurger & Mace, P.A.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator East Central Public Schools)

Paulo M.C.C. de Castro, Disability Law Center, Mid- Minnesota Legal Aid, Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for respondent W.M.)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Martha J. Casserly, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota Department of Education)

Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Johnson,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
JOHNSON, Judge
A high school student was expelled in the middle of his senior year. He pursued an
administrative appeal to the commissioner of education, who reversed the expulsion. The
school district sought judicial review of the commissioner’s decision in this court. Before
the parties submitted their appellate briefs, the student graduated from high school. We
2
conclude that the appeal is moot and that none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine
apply. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.
FACTS
East Central High School is located in Pine County and serves the communities of
Sandstone, Askov, and Finlayson. On December 10, 2021, the school conducted a pre-
planned lockdown drill. A twelfth-grade student, W.M., was in a welding classroom with
a teacher and other students, all of whom took shelter in a storage area in the back corner
of the welding shop. During the drill, W.M. was intrigued by flashing green lights and
used his cellphone to record a video of the lights. He edited the video and posted it to the
Snapchat social-media platform with a caption: “it’s a mf rave.” The Snapchat post
included an audio-recording of a voice on a school-wide intercom system and another voice
of a person standing near W.M., who happened to be his teacher, saying, “it might make
the shooter pissed off.”
Soon thereafter, a student at a nearby high school saw and heard the Snapchat post.
The student, who knew W.M., believed that there was an active shooter at W.M.’s high
school. The student reported the Snapchat post to the principal of his high school , who
reported it to the local police department, which dispatched officers to East Central High
School. Meanwhile, police officers called the principal of East Central High School, who
then ordered a second lockdown. When police officers arrived at East Central High School,
they performed a protective sweep to ensure that there was not a dangerous situation in the
building. Police officers handcuffed W.M. and placed him in the back seat of a squad car,
3
which was parked in front of the high school and was visible to concerned parents who had
gone to the school. W.M. was held in the county jail for three days before being released.
On December 28, 2021, the superintendent of the East Central School District gave
notice to W.M. and his parents pursuant to the Pupil Fair Dismissal Act (PFDA), Minn.
Stat. §§ 121A.40-.575 (2022), that the school district was initiating an action to expel W.M.
for 12 months. The notice stated three grounds for the proposed expulsion: (1) a willful
violation of the school board’s regulations, (2) willful conduct that caused a significant
disruption, and (3) willful conduct that endangered others. See Minn. Stat. § 121A.45,
subd. 2.
On January 11, 2022, W.M., who was represented by an attorney, participated in a
hearing conducted by an independent hearing officer. The school district called five
witnesses and introduced ten exhibits. W.M. called two witnesses and introduced three
exhibits. On January 13, 2022, the hearing officer issued a 13-page order recommending
that W.M. be expelled for 12 months based on the second and third grounds stated in the
school district’s notice. On January 18, 2022, the school board issued a two-page written
decision adopting the hearing officer’s recommendation, with slight modifications. The
school board expelled W.M. until January 17, 2023.
W.M. pursued an administrative appeal of the school board’s decision to the state
department of education. See Minn. Stat. § 121A.49. On March 21, 2022, the
commissioner of education issued a 36-page decision. The commissioner noted that, in In
re Expulsion of A.D., 883 N.W.2d 251 (Minn. 2016), the supreme court stated that there is
no endangerment if “the risk and possibility of harm is too tenuous to constitute substantial
4
evidence of endangerment.” See id. at 263. The commissioner reasoned that, in this case,
“the mere action of posting a video referencing a rave is not inherently dangerous” and that
there was “too tenuous a connection” between W.M.’s “choice to make a video about a
rave and post it to social media” and any resulting disruption or endangerment and, thus,
an inadequate basis to “hold [W.M.] responsible for the risk and possibility of disruption
or danger from the police response.” Accordingly, the commissioner concluded that the
school board’s decision was based on an error of law and that, under a proper view of the
law, there was not substantial evidence to support the school board’s decision. The
commissioner also concluded that W.M.’s expulsion hearing was based on unlawful
procedure because the hearing officer did not compel the testimony of the student who saw
W.M.’s Snapchat post and the principal of the other high school who reported the matter
to police. Ultimately, the commissioner reversed the expulsion and required the school
district to “immediately enroll [W.M.] as a student in good standing. ” The commissioner
imposed conditions on the school district in the event that it again chose to pursue W.M.’s
expulsion. The commissioner also stated, “The portion of [W.M.]’s record referring to the
expulsion and the district’s unlawful dismissal of [W.M.] from school must be expunged
from [W.M.]’s record within 15 calendar days of the date of this decision.”
On April 19, 2022 (29 days after the commissioner’s decision), the school district
filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the clerk of appellate courts to seek judicial review
of the commissioner’ s decision. See Minn. Stat. § 121A.50. No party to the appeal
requested that the appeal be expedited. See Minn. App. Spec. R. Prac. 1; Minn. R. Civ.
App. P. 127. On June 3, 2022, W.M. graduated from East Central High School and
5
received his diploma. The school district and W.M. submitted their respective briefs
between June 20 and August 3, 2022, and the court heard oral arguments in December
2022.1
DECISION
The school district argues that the commissioner erred by reversing its expulsion
decision. Specifically, the school district argues that the commissioner misapplied the
PFDA’s “willful conduct” standard, engaged in impermissible fact- finding, and wrongly
concluded that the school district violated W.M.’s procedural rights.
In his responsive brief, W.M. first argues that this court should dismiss the school
district’s appeal on the ground that the appeal is moot because he has graduated from East
Central High School. W.M. also argues in the alternative that the commissioner’s decision
is correct and should be affirmed.
In its reply brief, the school district argues that the appeal is not moot on the ground
that “there is still an active controversy as to whether the school district must modify its
records to change whether W.M. was expelled.” The school district argues in the
alternative that three exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply.
We begin by considering the issue of mootness.

1Oral argument initially was scheduled for a date in early October 2022. But the
event twice was postponed because attorney s self-reported COVID-19 symptoms and
requested that oral argument be rescheduled.
6
A. Mootness
As a general rule, appellate courts “decide only actual controversies and avoid
advisory opinions.” In re McCaskill, 603 N.W.2d 326, 327 (Minn. 1999). If an event has
occurred while an appeal is pending, and if the event makes “a decision on the merits
unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal will be dismissed as
moot.” In re Inspection of Minnesota Auto Specialties, Inc., 346 N.W.2d 657, 658 (Minn.
1984); see also Housing & Redevelopment Auth. ex rel. City of Richfield v. Walser Auto
Sales, Inc., 641 N.W.2d 885, 888 (Minn. 2002). The key question is whether “‘a decision
on the merits is no longer necessary or an award of effective relief is no longer possible.’”
State ex rel. Ford v. Schnell, 933 N.W.2d 393, 401 (Minn. 2019) (quoting Dean v. City of
Winona, 868 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Minn. 2015)). That standard is not met if “the controversy is
no longer of any practical significance.” In re Application of Minnegasco, 565 N.W.2d
706, 710 (Minn. 1997).
To determine whether there is a live controversy, we look to the law governing the
parties’ dispute, the decision under review, and the appellant’s request for relief. See id.;
Mertins v. Commissioner of Natural Resources, 755 N.W.2d 329, 334 (Minn. App. 2008).
The general policy of the PFDA , as stated by the legislature, is that “[n]o public school
shall deny due process or equal protection of the law to any public school pupil involved
in a dismissal proceeding which may result in suspension, exclusion, or expulsion.” Minn.
Stat. § 121A.42. The act ensures that a student is not dismissed from school except for
certain specified reasons. Minn. Stat. § 121A.45, subd. 2. The act allows a student to
appeal a school board’s dismissal decision to the commissioner of education, who may,
7
among other things, “reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of” a student
“have been prejudiced” by an error of law. Minn. Stat. § 121A.49. But t he act does not
contain any provision governing the retention or expungement of a school district’s records
of a dismissal. See Minn. Stat. §§ 121A.40-.575.
The decisions underlying this appeal are either exclusively concerned or primarily
concerned with whether W.M. should be expelled, not with the records of his expulsion .
Whether W.M. should be expelled is the sole focus of the decisions of the hearing officer
and the school board. The primary purpose of the commissioner’s order was to reverse
W.M.’s expulsion and require the school district to reinstate him as a student. The
commissioner’s order also instructed the school district to expunge the dismissal from its
records, but that part of the commissioner’s order is a natural corollary to the
commissioner’s decision to reverse the expulsion and to require W.M.’s reinstatement.
In the conclusion of its principal brief— which was filed more than two weeks after
W.M.’s graduation—the school district requested the following relief on appeal: “the
[commissioner’s] decision should be reversed and the board’s decision to expel W.M.
based on his willful conduct should be reinstated.” At that stage of the appeal, the school
district did not ask this court to reverse that part of the commissioner’s order that requires
the school district to expunge its records of W.M.’s expulsion.
Consequently, the issue presented by this appeal is whether the commissioner
correctly decided that the school district violated W.M.’s rights under the PFDA and
correctly decided that he should not have been expelled and instead should be reinstated as
a student. W.M. was reinstated, and he has graduated from high school. Because he has
8
graduated, it is no longer necessary to determine whether his rights under the PFDA were
violated and whether he should have been reinstated. Whether the school district must
expunge its records of W.M.’s expulsion is not a matter “of any practical significance.”
See Minnegasco, 565 N.W.2d at 710.
The school district cites two opinions from another jurisdiction in which courts
determined that appeal s concerning student discipline were not moot after a student had
graduated or after a disciplinary period had expired. See Henry Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. S.G.,
804 S.E.2d 427, 430 n.1 (Ga. 2017) (concluding that student’s appeal of expungement was
not moot despite her having graduated); Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. D.R.H., 752 S.E.2d
103, 109 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013) (concluding that trial court correctly determined that
student’s appeal of expulsion was not moot despite expulsion period having expired). But
in each of these two cases, the student—not the school—sought judicial review of an
expulsion. See S.G., 804 S.E.2d at 430 & n.1; D.R.H., 752 S.E.2d at 108-09. In each case,
the court reasoned that the case was not moot because the student was entitled to a review
of the determination of misconduct. S.G., 804 S.E.2d at 430 n.1; D.R.H., 752 S.E.2d at
109. One court expressly reasoned that “a determination of misconduct on a student’ s
school record carries . . . consequences, particularly as it concerns future school discipline
or the ability of a student to obtain employment or enter an institution of higher learning
later in life.” D.R.H., 752 S.E.2d at 109.2

2The school district cites one other opinion from a foreign jurisdiction, but it is either
not on point or not helpful to the school district. In Massengill v. Bd. of Educ., Antioch
Cmty. High Sch., 88 F.R.D. 181 (N.D. Ill. 1980), a putative class action challenged a
school’s disciplinary policies. Id. at 183. The district court denied a motion for class
9
A student’s interest in overturning a disciplinary decision is very different from a
school’s interest in upholding a disciplinary decision. More importantly, a student’s
interest in overturning a disciplinary decision is very different from a school ’s interest in
retaining records of a disciplinary decision concerning a student who has graduated and
will not again be enrolled in the school. In this case, the school district has not identified
any tangible benefit to the school district that might arise from its retention of records
concerning the expulsion of a student who has graduated. The PFDA, which governs this
matter, contains no pr ovision that gives a school district a right to retain records of
disciplinary decisions. The purpose of the PFDA is to ensure that students are not
wrongfully expelled and, if they are, to ensure that they are reinstated. The school district’s
abstract interest in retaining records of its expulsion decision is not a valid reason for
deciding the merits of this appeal.

certification on the ground that the named plaintiffs (a suspended student and his mother)
were not adequate class representatives because neither met “the high level of
responsibility imposed on every class representative,” neither was sufficiently “capable”
and “responsible,” and neither “manifested the requisite ability to represent the class or
pursue this litigation with diligence.” Id. at 185. In a footnote, the district court rejected
the school’s argument that the student’s subsequent expulsion from the school made him
an inadequate representative, noting that the existence of records of a disciplinary action
may prevent an action from becoming moot because of the possibility of collateral
consequences “that could possibly harm the student in the future.” Id. at 185 n.4. The non-
mootness rationale was not essential to the district court’s denial of the motion for class
certification. In any event, the district court ’s statement assumes that a claim is being
pursued by a student, not by a school. See id.
10
Thus, this appeal is moot because “a decision on the merits is no longer necessary”
and “an award of effective relief is no longe r possible.” See Ford, 933 N.W.2d at 401
(quotation omitted).3
B. Exceptions
As stated above, the school district argues, in the alternative, that three exceptions
to the mootness doctrine apply. We will consider each exception in turn.
1. Functionally Justiciable and Statewide Significance
The school district first argues that this court should invoke the exception for
appeals that are functionally justiciable and of statewide significance. An appellate court
may consider the merits of an appeal that is technically moot if it “is ‘functionally
justiciable’ and presents an important question of ‘statewide significance that should be
decided immediately.’” Dean, 868 N.W.2d at 6 (quoting State v. Rud, 359 N.W.2d 573,
576 (Minn. 1984)). An appeal is functionally justiciable if “the record contains the raw
material traditionally associated with effective judicial decision-making, including a full
presentation of both sides of the issues raised.” Ford, 933 N.W.2d at 403-04. An appeal
has statewide significance if “it involves an issue of public concern and further harm could
occur if the court were to wait for a future case to present the issue.” Geyen v.

3Our conclusion is consistent with this court’s conclusion in another appeal
concerning the rights of a student who had graduated. In Goeden v. Minnesota State High
Sch. League, No. A21-0014, 2021 WL 3611458 (Minn. App. Aug. 16, 2021), the
Minnesota State High School League appealed a temporary restraining order that enjoined
the league from enforcing a bylaw that would have prevented a student-athlete from
participating in sports during his senior year of high school. Id. at *1. The student-athlete
graduated from high school during the pendency of the appeal. Id. at *2. The parties
agreed that the appeal was technically moot, and this court agreed as well. Id.
11
Commissioner of Dep artment of Human Services, 964 N.W.2d 639, 650 (Minn. App.
2021); see also Snell v. Walz, ____ N.W.2d ____, ____, 2023 WL 1807743, at *5 (Minn.
Feb. 8, 2023).
The parties focus their arguments on the second part of the exception: whether the
appeal presents an issue of statewide significance. The school district contends that the
appeal presents such an issue because the commissioner incorrectly interpreted the statute
and the applicable caselaw. W.M. contends that there is no such issue because the appeal
“presents a highly unique set of facts.”
We agree with W.M. that this appeal does not contain “an important question of
‘statewide significance that should be decided immediately.’” See Dean, 868 N.W.2d at 6
(quoting Rud, 359 N.W.2d at 576). This appeal is unlike the appeal in Rud, in which the
supreme court considered moot issues under this exception because “a failure to decide
them now could have a continuing adver se impact in other criminal trials if trial judges
were to rely on the Court of Appeals’ decision.” 359 N.W.2d at 576. To the contrary, any
other cases of this type likely can be resolved by applying the supreme court’s opinion in
A.D., which interpreted the same statutory provisions that are discussed in the parties ’
briefs in this case. See 883 N.W.2d at 256-63. Thus, this exception does not apply.
2. Capable of Repetition Yet Evading Review
The school district next argues that this court should invoke the exception for
appeals that are capable of repetition yet likely to evade review. This 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
12
complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.’” Kahn v. Griffin, 701
N.W.2d 815, 821 (Minn. 2005) (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975)).
“Both elements of the doctrine must be met.” Snell, 2023 WL 1807743, at *7 n.6.
The school district argues that this exception applies because “the expulsion period
was too short to be fully litigated. ” W.M. argues that expulsion decisions usually are
unlikely to evade review because most expulsions do not occur so close to a student’s
graduation and because expedited review is available if necessary.
We believe that it is unlikely that the same complaining party—the school district—
will again be subjected to the same action —a decision by the commissioner reversing an
expulsion decision based on similar circumstances. As an initial matter, we note that the
events of December 10, 2021, were very unusual and are unlikely to be repeated at East
Central High School or at any other school in the school district. In the unlikely event that
they were to reoccur, there is no particular reason to believe that the school board will again
expel a student and no particular reason to believe that the commissioner again will reverse
the expulsion. In addition, it is unlikely that any expelled student will be as close in time
to graduation as was W.M. Thus, the second requirement of this exception is not satisfied.
3. Collateral Consequences
The school district last argues that this court should invoke the exception for appeals
of decisions that may have collateral consequences. Under this exception, an appeal will
not be dismissed as moot if an appellant will suffer collateral consequences from the
underlying judgment. McCaskill, 603 N.W.2d at 329.
13
The school district contends that it will face collateral consequences because, if the
appeal is dismissed as moot, it will be required to comply with the commissioner’s order
that the school district expunge its records of W.M.’s expulsion. For the reasons that are
stated above in part A, that consequence is not one with “real and substantial disabilities.”
See id. (quotation omitted). The school district contends that it is adversely affected
because “the school board felt it was important to respond to the extreme disruption caused
by W.M.’s actions with an expulsion ” but the commissioner’ s decision “negates this
response and sends a message that students can avoid consequences for extremely
disruptive behavior.” This contention appears to suggest that the school district might use
its records of W.M.’s expulsion to deter future misbehavior. But the school district has a
duty to maintain the privacy of educational data relating to W.M. See Minn. Stat. § 13.32,
subd. 3 (2022). The school district cannot disclose such data to anyone except W.M., who
has graduated and has no interest in the data. Thus, this exception also does not apply.
In sum, we conclude that the appeal is moot and that none of the exceptions to the
mootness doctrine apply. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.