Our Constitutional Officers Have a Responsibility to Implement Minnesota's Education Clause

 In our last post, we began a series examining Minnesota's constitutional education clause with a focus on the Supreme Court's holding in the Skeen and Cruz Guzman cases that the legislature must provide school districts with enough funding to afford each student with an education that meets all state standards.  We pause after Part 1 of that series to suggest that Minnesota's constitutional officers themselves have an obligation fully to implement the letter and intent of those decisions.   

Role of the Governor and MMB. You may point out that the text of the education clause explicitly targets the legislature. But the legislature does not function in a constitutional vacuum.  The legislature cannot perform its constitutional duty, unless the constitutional officers in the executive branch provide the legislature with adequate information.   For example, the legislature can't make sure that our bridges and other infrastructure are safe, unless the Commissioner of Transportation provides them with accurate information on the state of those bridges.  Similarly, the legislature cannot provide enough funding to school districts  to afford each student with an adequate education that meets all state standards, unless the Governor, Commissioner of Education and Office of Management of Budget (MMB)  each provide research-based data and a plan to fulfill that constitutional responsibility.   MMB acts as the governor's agent, but its legislative duties also involve directly interacting with legislative committees and providing financial data to the legislature.  

Role of the Attorney General.    Article V of the Minnesota Constitution requires each officer to "take an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of this state...." In particular, the Minnesota Attorney General holds a unique constitutional and statutory responsibility that goes beyond merely defending the state in litigation. By virtue of the office, the Attorney General is sworn to uphold both the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. This oath is not symbolic—it establishes a primary duty to ensure that the laws and practices of the state conform to constitutional limits. When the Attorney General becomes aware that a statute or government practice violates the Minnesota Constitution, the responsibility to advise the Governor and Legislature is inherent in that duty. The purpose of such counsel is not to substitute the AG’s judgment for that of elected lawmakers, but to safeguard the constitutional framework under which all state action must occur.  

Statutorily, Minnesota law reinforces this advisory role. Minn. Stat. § 8.01 authorizes the Attorney General to act “whenever, in the attorney general’s opinion, the interests of the state require it.” The “interests of the state” necessarily include fidelity to the Minnesota Constitution, which is the fundamental law binding all branches of government. Moreover, the Attorney General is the legal advisor to state officers and boards under Minn. Stat. § 8.06. This mandate presumes an active duty to provide candid legal advice—including warnings—when governmental conduct risks violating constitutional rights. To withhold such advice would frustrate the very purpose of the Attorney General’s role as the state’s chief legal officer.

From a structural standpoint, the Attorney General’s duty to advise on constitutional compliance is indispensable to the separation of powers. The Legislature enacts laws, and the Governor executes them, but both rely on sound legal counsel to ensure their actions remain within constitutional boundaries. The Attorney General, independent and sworn to the Constitution, is the official charged with offering that counsel. This responsibility is heightened in cases where political pressures might tempt other branches to disregard constitutional limits. In those moments, the Attorney General serves as the constitutional conscience of state government, reminding policymakers that their authority is bounded and must yield to the rights and liberties secured by the Minnesota Constitution.

In sum, both the oath of office and Minnesota statutes require the Attorney General to do more than passively defend state laws. The office carries an affirmative obligation to advise the Governor and Legislature when their actions contravene the Constitution. This responsibility not only ensures adherence to the rule of law, but also preserves the legitimacy of state institutions by maintaining their fidelity to Minnesota’s fundamental charter.  

Minnesota Attorney General's Recognition that Inadequate Funding Prevents Delivery of an Adequate Education.   To his credit, in April of this year, Attorney General Ellison joined with other  state Attorneys General to demand that the federal government end the freeze of federal education funding. On behalf of the state, the Attorney General alleged that the withholding of a $188 million of Title I funding would severely compromise Minnesota's ability to serve Title I eligible students.   Paragraph 99 of the federal complaint admits that adequate funding is necessary to deliver an adequate funding as follows:

If Minnesota were to lose the funding for the programs described above, resources that have been appropriated by Congress and obligated to Minnesota, Minnesota would be unable to replace  federal funding administered by ED. The results would be catastrophic for Minnesota students.  Specifically, the academic impact from loss of instructional support and the economic impact from  loss of jobs in Minnesota schools will result in lasting damage to the State’s efforts to ensure  equal access to education for all students.  Loss of special education funding would devastate schools and districts’ abilities to serve students with disabilities. 

The state of Minnesota has thus signed onto a judicial admission that school districts need adequate funding to deliver an adequate education and to "ensure equal access to education for all students."  Just as the loss of a mere $188 million created a substantial risk to students, justifying action by the Attorney General, so the deeply inadequate funding of the districts disproportionately serving low income students and English language learners justifies a constitutional remedy.  

Minnesota Faces an Educational Crisis.  Minnesota faces a crisis in education students who need extra support.  MDE data from 2023-2024 reports that 50.3 % of students reached proficiency in ELA (reading/language arts) and 47.4 % in math.  In Grades 3–8, 59 % of white students reached proficiency  in EL, wheras only 31 % of black/African American students scored proficient in ELA.   In Minneapolis, only about 20 percent of black students who are not classified as English Language Learners score at or above the proficient level. In contrast more than 70 percent of white students score at or above proficient.   

Test scores are only one window on this problem.  Although the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that there is a fundamental constitutional right requiring the legislature to provide districts with enough funding to afford each student with an adequate education that meets all state standards, no constitutional officer, not the Governor, not the Commissioner of Education, not the Attorney General, have taken bold steps to provide the legislature with research based data on the amount of funds necessary to comply with the constitution, nor have they acted to assure accountability and effective practices.   

Our next blog post will continue with a detailed description of what the Skeen and Cruz Guzman cases have actually said about the constitutional funding obligation.