Minnesota Court of Appeals Allows Civil Rights Case Against Minneapolis Over Public Housing Conditions to Proceed

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has issued a significant ruling allowing a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority to proceed, rejecting immunity claims that had previously shielded the entities from accountability. The August 18, 2025 opinion represents a pivotal moment in a case alleging systematic discrimination against public housing residents through inadequate inspections and substandard living conditions.

The lawsuit, filed in September 2021 by residents Kimberly Lowry and Jeanne Harris on behalf of current and former public housing tenants, centers on allegations that the City violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act by failing to conduct routine inspections of public housing units while maintaining regular inspections for private rental properties. Additionally, the complaint asserts that MPHA violated various laws by failing to obtain proper rental licenses and maintain safe, habitable dwellings for residents.

In its ruling, the three-judge panel led by Judge Schmidt determined that the City's director of regulatory services violated ministerial duties by refusing to enforce city code requirements for MPHA tenants. The court specifically noted that "The duty to adopt a policy that includes the systematic inspections of all rental dwellings is a ministerial one that the director of regulatory services has violated" and that the official was "not entitled to official immunity for refusing to enforce the city code on behalf of MPHA tenants."

The court also reversed the district court's decision granting MPHA immunity, finding that there were genuine questions of material fact regarding whether enforcement of licensing requirements—which mandate code compliance inspections before license issuance—could have prevented the alleged injuries to residents. This aspect of the ruling is particularly significant as it addresses the fundamental responsibility of housing authorities to ensure basic living standards.

Anna P. Prakash of Nichols Kaster, PLLP, lead attorney for the residents, emphasized the importance of the decision, stating that it removes longstanding excuses for the City's and MPHA's alleged failures regarding licensing and inspections. The ruling enables public housing residents to have their claims heard on merit rather than being dismissed through immunity defenses.

This case has broader implications for public housing systems nationwide, as it challenges the differential treatment between public and private housing residents regarding basic health and safety protections. The court's rejection of immunity arguments establishes that municipalities and housing authorities cannot avoid accountability for alleged discriminatory practices that affect vulnerable populations. The outcome could influence similar cases across the country and potentially lead to improved inspection protocols and living conditions in public housing developments.

The litigation continues in Minnesota's Fourth Judicial District Court as Case No. 27-cv-21-10928, with the plaintiffs represented by legal teams from Nichols Kaster, PLLP and Shoemaker & Shoemaker, PLLC. The progression of this case will be closely watched by housing advocates, legal experts, and municipal authorities as it may redefine the obligations of cities and housing authorities toward public housing residents and establish new precedents for housing equality enforcement.