Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br />4936-0413-5952\4 <br />Analysis: <br />As previously discussed, St. Anthony may regulate the activities of law enforcement <br />generally. United States v. New York, No. 1:25-CV-744 (MAD/PJE), 2025 LX 506308, at *46 <br />(N.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2025). St. Anthony may not, however, directly regulate federal officers of <br />discriminate against them. CoreCivic, Inc., 145 F.4th at 319. Here, although St. Anthony should <br />phrase its prospective ordinance neutrally, it nevertheless could be challenged in court as a direct <br />regulation on the equipment and activity of ICE agents. <br />Question: May St. Anthony prohibit evictions during the pendency of ICE operations? <br />Answer: St. Anthony may not impose an eviction moratorium specifically responding to ICE <br />actions in the city. <br />Analysis: A city moratorium on evictions in response to the ongoing ICE presence in the <br />community faces two obstacles. First, St. Anthony would need to show that the eviction provisions <br />of the Minnesota Landlord/Tenant Code would not preempt the moratorium. Second, the <br />moratorium would also need to survive a constitutional challenge under the Contract Clause. <br />If a state statute and local ordinance contain terms that are irreconcilable with one another, the <br />state statute preempts and thus invalidates the local ordinance. Graco v. City of Minneapolis, <br />N.W.2d 756, 816 (Minn. 2020). Under Minnesota law, “a conflict exists where the ordinance <br />forbids what the statute expressly permits.” Id. at 760. Minnesota Statutes authorize landlords to <br />evict tenants for, among other things, nonpayment of rent and breaches of the lease. Minn. Stat. <br />§ 504B.268, .285, .291. The eviction moratorium would forbid what the state law permits. <br />Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Roseville recently passed resolutions urging Governor Walz to invoke <br />his emergency powers to declare a state-wide eviction moratorium. St. Anthony could join them <br />and pass a similar resolution to apply pressure on the Governor to exercise his authority under <br />the Emergency Management Act to impose a state-wide moratorium. <br />A moratorium would also need to survive a Contract Clause challenge. Under the Contract Clause <br />of the U.S. Constitution, a state may not pass a law “impairing the obligation of contract.” U.S. <br />Const., Art. I, § 10. The Contract Clause’s protections apply against local governments as well as <br />states. Jennissen v. City of Bloomington, 938 N.W.2d 808 (Minn. 2020). To survive a Contract <br />Clause challenge, St. Anthony would have to show that the eviction moratorium serves a <br />“significant and legitimate public purpose” and that the means are “reasonable” in light of that <br />public interest. During the COVID-19 crisis, Governor Walz used the Emergency Management <br />Act to impose a state-wide eviction moratorium. Heights Apartments, LLC v. Walz, 30 F.4th 720, <br />731–32 (8th Cir. 2022). The government’s interest in protecting citizens from eviction due to the <br />effects of a pathogen is a legitimate government interest. In this case, St. Anthony would be <br />protecting residents from the secondary impacts of the government itself. <br />Question: May St. Anthony prohibit towing and storage fees during the pendency of ICE <br />operations? <br />Answer: St. Anthony may prohibit towing and storage fees but must abide by state statutes <br />allowing private property owners to tow cars on their property.