One minute, Sam was a typical kid enjoying himself on the playground. The next minute, he was withdrawn, angry and on a path to self-destruction. Thankfully, someone intervened.

Find out what happened to Sam »
More Stories of Justice »


     Home > Judge grants temporary order restoring benefits in unallotment case

UPDATE 1/4/2009:  JUDGE GRANTS TEMPORARY ORDER RESTORING BENEFITS IN UNALLOTMENT CASE.  Click here for the opinion.

DISABLED AND LOW-INCOME CHALLENGE UNALLOTMENT OF MEDICALLY PRESCRIBED SPECIAL DIET FUNDING AND THE RENTER’S CREDIT

Reductions will affect disabled and lowest income Minnesotans

Six disabled and low-income Minnesotans filed suit in Ramsey County to prevent the State from discontinuing cash supplements that pay for the food they need to stay healthy. The plaintiffs are suing on behalf of themselves and all others who either receive or would be eligible to receive Minnesota Supplemental Aid-Special Diet funding (MSA-SD).

Plaintiffs’ suit also challenges the unallotment of the “renter’s credit,” a property tax refund program for tenants. Plaintiffs need the full renter tax refund to meet their basic needs.

These funding cuts were made by the Governor through a process called “unallotment” after the legislature recessed. Plaintiffs assert the unallotment process was used incorrectly this year to circumvent the legislative process. They claim that this use violated both state law and the state constitution.

MSA-SD helps eligible individuals buy food required by a special diet prescribed by their doctors. The unallotment of MSA-SD funds is scheduled to take effect November 1, 2009. The plaintiffs ask the court to stop the MSA-SD cuts so that they and thousands of others will be able to continue to afford the food necessary to follow their special diets. “The proposed cuts in special diet funds are especially hard on individuals who need to follow a medically prescribed diet as a result of their disability. For example, plaintiff Deanna Brayton has numerous health conditions that require her to follow a complex, strict diet prescribed by her doctor to avoid medical complications and hospitalization. Maintaining this necessary low-protein, gluten-free, lactose-free diet costs Ms. Brayton an average of $400 per month,” said Galen Robinson, lead counsel representing the plaintiffs.

By law, 19% of a tenant’s rent is considered to be the amount they pay as property tax. The renter property tax refund is designed to refund part of the property taxes paid by low-income renters. The defendants’ unallotment action reduces the refund renters receive for 2009. The plaintiffs ask the court to stop the reduction. Robinson noted, “The proposed cut in renters’ property tax refunds harms thousands of low-income renters who rely on that refund each fall to help them meet their basic needs.”

The plaintiffs assert that the Governor exceeded his executive authority in the way he used the unallotment process. The Minnesota Constitution provides for a separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government. The legislative branch passes appropriation bills funding programs and forwards them to the Governor for signature. Under executive authority the governor can veto bills or line-item veto specific spending in bills. If he signs them, they become law. If he uses his veto authority, the bill or line-item does not become law. The legislature can try to override the veto, or the two branches can work out a compromise. Instead, the governor used unallotment before the biennium started, to address a known revenue shortfall. By doing so, the governor attempted to eliminate the legislative branch’s constitutionally-mandated role in the law-making process. Such a question about the roles of the legislative and executive branches in making and executing the laws is appropriately resolved by the third branch of government- the courts.

“This year, funding for MSA-SD was adopted by the legislature in the Health and Human Services Appropriation bill and signed by the Governor. Because of this, our clients believe they should continue to get the help they need to pay for their medically-prescribed special diets,” said Ralonda Mason, who also represents plaintiffs in the case.

For more information you may contact Galen Robinson, 612-746-3750, or Ralonda Mason, 320-225-0121.

Full copies of case documents are found below: