Minnesota charter school is not immune from suit challenging its operation on Establishment Clause grounds on the basis of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity

A federal district court in Minnesota has ruled that a charter school is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from a suit challenging the school’s operation on First Amendment Establishment Clause grounds because the school is not an arm of the state. The court also ruled that the plaintiff had stated a prima facie case under § 1983 against the individual defendants and that they were not entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiff’s claims. The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (ACLU-MN) filed suit under § 1983 against Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA), its directors, the school's sponsor, Islamic Relief USA, and Minnesota Education Commissioner Alice Seagren. The suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that TiZA is a sectarian school that promotes the religion of Islam in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution.  In a previous ruling, the district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the suit. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings.

The district court noted that the pleadings clearly stated that the individual defendants were being sued “individually and in their capacities as Directors of [TiZA].” It found that the ACLU-MN had alleged that the school and its directors had created policies and practices and were involved in relationships that constituted Establishment Clause violations. The court pointed out that while qualified immunity shields individual defendants from claims for monetary damages under § 1983, it does not shield them from equitable claims, which is what ACLU was seeking: restitution of state funds received by TiZA, and injunctive relief with respect to the alleged unconstitutional policies at the school. The individual defendants, therefore, were not entitled to qualified immunity. In addition, the constitutional violation complained of by ACLU-MN was clearly established.

The court then determined that the school was not an arm of the state entitled to immunity from suit under § 1983 based on the Eleventh Amendment.  It pointed out that whether an entity is an arm of the state, thereby entitled to immunity, or a municipal corporation or other political subdivision, not entitled to such immunity, is based on the entity’s relationship to the state under state law. Minnesota law defines charter schools as school districts, which under state law makes a charter schools municipalities rather than arms of the state because of the significant autonomy that school districts enjoy in conducting their affairs. The court stressed that “charter schools have more freedom from state control than a typical school district” and “[t]his freedom and increased autonomy undermines TiZA’s argument that Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.” Because TiZA was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, there was no such immunity to extend to the individual defendants. 

The court also determined that indemnification claims against the school by the state education commissioner and the school’s sponsor could continue, and denied the petitions of 10 students and four of their parents to intervene and thereby become parties to the suit.

American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota v. Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, No. 09-138 (D. Minn. May 7, 2010)

[Editor’s Note: As this ruling is a denial of the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, the suit will go on.  In its complaint, the ACLU-MN claims that the school and the individual defendants failed to ensure that the school, funded with state tax money, operated in a nonsectarian manner.  It alleges that the defendants permit prayer to be posted prominently in the school’s entryway, prayer sessions to be held during the school day, and teacher-sanctioned religious materials to be posted in classrooms.  It also alleges that the defendants endorse Islamic dress and dietary restrictions, and prefer Islamic practices by providing  school transportation only after the Islamic religious studies program at the end of the day.  The ACLU-MN seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the operation and funding of the school violates the Establishment Clause and specifically advances the Muslim religion.  A summary of the district court’s previous ruling allowing the ACLU-MN’s suit to proceed is available below.]

NSBA School Law pages on ACLU-MN v. TiZA