Minnesota State Law Library
Shown here are the statements of the issues presented for review by the appellate courts in the briefs filed for this case. The entire brief set can be found at the State Law Library and other libraries around the state. See Minnesota Appellate Court Briefs Collection for more information.
CASE NAME: Buddie Greene, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, Respondent, Aitkin County Health and Human Services,
Read the opinion in this case at A06-804
CITATION: 755 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. 2008)
Legal Issues in APPELLANTS BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
I. Is denying a tribal member state employment services received by all other residents impermissible discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause of the state and federal constitutions. II. Whether the statute, Minn. Stat. § 256J.645 (2006), which imposes a duty upon the county to make referrals to tribal employment services when a participant is deemed eligible and the contract, which prohibits tribe from refusing services to eligible participants authorizes or allows Respondent County to deny state employment services to Appellant. III. Is there a compelling or legitimate governmental interest in saving money on welfare costs by denying benefits to an eligible applicant? IV. Does denying Appellant state employment services amount to preferential treatment and warrant rational basis review in accordance with the Mancari and Kreuth decisions? V. Should strict scrutiny should be applied to Respondent County's practice of denying Appellant state employment services because the practice penalizes Appellant for exercising her fundamental right to travel and access the public services where she lives? VI. Should strict scrutiny be applied to Respondent County's denial of state employment services to Appellant because she is a member of a suspect class that does not fall under the protection of the Respondents' purported trust doctrine?
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER'S BRIEF, ADDENDUM AND APPENDIX:
Is the challenged classification in Minnesota Statutes section 256J.645, subdivision 4, which requires certain tribal members on public assistance to obtain employment services exclusively through a participating tribe, rationally related to Minnesota's legitimate purpose in furthering tribal self-government and sovereignty, thus satisfying the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and state constitutions? Decision below: The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Human Services. The court found that the law comported with equal protection principles because the challenged classification was political in nature and rationally related to the "legitimate state interest in protecting and promoting tribal sovereignty." Greene v. Comm'r of the Minn. Dep't of Human Servs., 733 N.W.2d 490, 497 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). Apposite Authority: City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 96 S. Ct. 2513 (1976); Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 94 S. Ct. 2474 (1974); Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382, 96 S. Ct. 943 (1976); State v. Russell, 477 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 1991).
Legal Issues in JOINT AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA TRIBE AND LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS:
The Amici Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (the "Amici") incorporate in full the legal issue as stated by Respondent Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (the "Respondent").
Also filed: APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF; PETITION FOR REHEARING; COMMISSIONER OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES ANSWER TO PETITION FOR REHEARING