Hittner v. Minnesota Department of Health
Case Attorneys: Allie Howell and Nicholas Nelson
The Upper Midwest Law Center filed this lawsuit to challenge a policy from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) that attempts to regulate certain private residential pools as if they were commercial public swimming facilities.
The dispute centers on homeowners who occasionally rent access to their pools through Swimply, an online platform often compared to an “Airbnb for swimming pools.” Through the service, homeowners can allow guests to reserve time at their backyard pool for a small gathering, a swim lesson, or a family outing.
For many homeowners, it’s simply a way to share a private amenity during Minnesota’s short summer season.
But MDH has taken the position that when a homeowner charges for access—even occasionally—that backyard pool may suddenly qualify as a public pool under state regulations.
Public pools in Minnesota must comply with extensive rules designed for large commercial facilities such as hotels, fitness clubs, and municipal aquatic centers. Those requirements can involve structural changes, licensing obligations, inspections, and significant regulatory costs.
UMLC’s lawsuit argues that the state is attempting to impose those rules on ordinary homeowners without legal authority.
The Policy Behind the Dispute
In 2021, MDH issued a document titled “Residential Swimming Pool and Spa Rentals.” The guidance asserts that residential pools rented through services like Swimply may fall under the state’s public pool regulations.
According to UMLC, this guidance effectively rewrites Minnesota law.
The lawsuit argues the Department’s interpretation:
- Exceeds the authority granted to MDH by the legislature
- Creates regulatory obligations that lawmakers never approved
- Was never adopted through the formal rulemaking procedures required under the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act
Instead of going through the legal process required to create new regulations, UMLC contends the agency attempted to impose new rules through informal guidance.
Why This Case Matters
This case raises a broader issue about how government agencies create and enforce regulations.
Minnesota law requires agencies to follow specific procedures when adopting rules that affect citizens and property owners. Those procedures exist to ensure transparency, public input, and accountability.
UMLC’s lawsuit asks the court to reaffirm that agencies cannot bypass that process by issuing guidance that expands their authority beyond what the law allows.
For Minnesota homeowners, the outcome could determine whether occasional pool sharing through platforms like Swimply is treated as a private activity—or regulated like a commercial public swimming facility.