Background
In 2023, the Minnesota Legislature amended the state’s eviction expungement statute, Minn. Stat. § 484.014, to require courts to order expungement of an eviction court file upon a defendant’s motion if the case was settled and the defendant fulfilled the settlement terms. In December 2023, landlord Sela Investments brought an eviction action against tenant J.H., which the parties resolved through a court-approved settlement requiring J.H. to vacate by January 31, 2024. J.H. complied. Six months later, J.H. moved for mandatory expungement of the eviction court file under the 2023 amendment, and the district court granted the motion.
Sela Investments appealed, arguing that the mandatory expungement provision was unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine, the First Amendment, and the common law, on the theory that it infringed on the judiciary’s inherent authority to manage its own records. The Minnesota Attorney General intervened to defend the statute’s constitutionality. The court of appeals agreed with Sela Investments and held the provision facially unconstitutional, reversing the expungement order and remanding for the district court to apply the discretionary balancing test under subdivision 2. J.H. petitioned for review.
Neither J.H. nor the Attorney General had challenged Sela Investments’ standing before the court of appeals. Before the Supreme Court, however, the Attorney General raised the standing question, prompting the court to address it as a threshold jurisdictional matter.
The Court’s Holding
Writing for the court, Justice McKeig held that Sela Investments lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. § 484.014, subd. 3(a)(7). Under settled Minnesota precedent, a litigant challenging a statute’s constitutionality must show that the statute is, or is about to be, applied to the litigant’s disadvantage—meaning the challenger must demonstrate possession of a specific legal interest or right that the statute places in jeopardy. The court found that Sela Investments identified no such interest. Having been a party to the underlying eviction case was insufficient on its own; standing in the eviction action did not automatically confer standing to challenge a separate statute governing the status of court records. And Sela Investments conceded it could retain its own knowledge of J.H. and choose not to rent to that person again, undercutting any claimed harm from the public expungement of the court file.
Because Sela Investments lacked standing, both the Supreme Court and the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to reach the constitutional merits. The court emphasized that standing is a non-waivable jurisdictional prerequisite that courts must police sua sponte at every stage of litigation, regardless of whether any party raises the issue. The court further held that vacatur of the court of appeals’ decision was the appropriate remedy whenever that court acted without jurisdiction, consistent with prior Minnesota Supreme Court practice.
Key Takeaways
- To challenge a Minnesota statute’s constitutionality, a party must show the statute has or is about to disadvantage a specific legal interest or right of that party — generalized grievance or mere party status in underlying litigation is insufficient.
- Standing cannot be waived by the parties and must be independently examined by courts at every stage of litigation, including on appeal; courts may raise standing sua sponte even when no party contests it.
- When the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction due to a party’s want of standing, the proper Supreme Court remedy is vacatur of that decision — leaving the constitutional question unresolved.
- Minnesota’s mandatory eviction-record expungement provision (Minn. Stat. § 484.014, subd. 3(a)(7)) remains on the books; the court of appeals’ ruling striking it down as unconstitutional has been wiped from the books and carries no precedential force.
Why It Matters
The court of appeals’ decision had cast serious doubt on the Legislature’s 2023 expansion of mandatory eviction expungement, a law tenant-rights advocates argued was critical to helping renters who honored their settlement agreements escape the lasting stigma of eviction records. By vacating on standing grounds, the Supreme Court leaves that constitutional question entirely open — neither validating nor invalidating the statute — while restoring the law to full effect for now. Landlord groups seeking to re-litigate the constitutional question will need to identify a challenger who can demonstrate concrete legal harm from the expungement itself, a burden this decision makes clear is not easily met.
More broadly, the decision is a significant reminder that even in housing court, standing doctrine has teeth. Courts — and litigants — cannot assume that participation in the underlying dispute automatically confers the right to challenge collateral statutory provisions. Attorneys representing landlords or tenants in expungement proceedings should carefully assess whether their client has a cognizable legal interest at stake before mounting or defending a constitutional challenge.