Jennissen v. City of Bloomington
Minnesota Supreme Court
938 N.W.2d 808 (2020)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
The City of Bloomington, Minnesota (Bloomington) (defendant) was a home-rule charter city, meaning that it had a city charter that governed local government operations. Bloomington’s charter granted broad legislative authority to the city’s citizens, allowing a form of direct democracy in which residents could legislate by ballot initiatives, veto city-council ordinances by referendum, and recall elected officials. Historically, Bloomington had an open trash-collection system in which residents individually chose and contracted with trash-collection companies. In 2014, Bloomington’s city council began the process of changing to an organized trash-collection system in which the city would choose the trash-collection companies for local areas. Joel Jennissen and other residents (defendants) opposed the change, believing it would decrease market competition. They petitioned to amend Bloomington’s charter to add a provision stating that the city could not replace the open trash-collection system with an organized trash-collection system without first acquiring majority approval from voters in a general election. The proposed amendment also specified that it would supersede any relevant ordinances adopted by the city council. Bloomington denied the petition to put the proposed amendment to a vote. The residents sued Bloomington, seeking an order requiring that the proposed charter amendment be put on the ballot for voter approval. The trial court and court of appeals held in Bloomington’s favor, and the residents appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McKeig, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.