Agenda - Council - 04/27/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Executive Orders or not. He stated that at that time he referenced other cities that have instructed their police not to enforce certain laws and legal counsel stated that he was not aware of those instances. He asked if any research has been done by legal counsel on those matters. He commented that perhaps if there are directly applicable cases it would be wise for the legal counsel to be aware of those cases. City Attorney Langel commented that he has not been asked to follow up on those matters since the original discussion and the case topic was very broad for tonight. He stated that it would seem that the references Councilmember Heineman made were related to immigration actions from various cities. He explained that immigration involves federal law, and it is his understanding that the federal government cannot force local government to enforce its laws and these cities have instructed their staff not to help the federal government do its job. He stated that is very different than this discussion. Councilmember Heineman used the example of Minneapolis decriminalizing marijuana use. City Attorney Langel commented that it is his understanding that it was not the City of Minneapolis but the decision of the Hennepin County Attorney not to process marijuana crimes under a certain level which is a matter of prosecutorial discretion. He commented that if someone is the City of Ramsey were charged with a misdemeanor for a mask violation, the Anoka County Attorney's Office would have the discretion as to whether to enforce that and not the City of Ramsey. Councilmember Heineman referenced a comment that ongoing challenges were dismissed at the court level and there were no ongoing cases challenging the Governor at that time. City Attorney Langel commented that there have been a number of cases that have come forward in both state and federal district courts. He commented that it would be difficult to track whether there are ongoing cases. Councilmember Heineman stated that on March 9th there was an ongoing case against the Governor and the Governor did terminate the portion of the Executive Order related to church capacity. He recalled a comment that precedent has been set by the district court and asked if that is, or was, true at the time. City Attorney Langel commented that the religious liberty cases are the one area where challenges have been successful throughout the country but has nothing to do with the resolution adopted in March. He commented that there have continued to be cases in court and to his knowledge none of those have been successful to this point. Councilmember Heineman commented that the resolution passed related to the Executive Order said that no City resources will be used to enforce the Executive Order related to the mask mandate. He stated that resolution helped to provide security to those churches in the community before that court case was settled and therefore believes the resolution was tied to religious freedoms. He commented that district court does not set precedent, which was pointed out to him by multiple people noting that precedent is set by trial, appellate and supreme courts. He stated therefore the City Council / April 13, 2021 Page 13 of 20