Peterson v. City of Minneapolis
Case Attorney: Rachel Paulose, Nicholas Nelson, and Austin Lysy
Holding the City Accountable to Its Own Law
The Upper Midwest Law Center has filed a petition on behalf of Minneapolis residents and property owners to enforce a clear legal requirement: the City must maintain a fully staffed police department under its own charter.
This case is not about new policy. It is about enforcing a duty that already exists under Minnesota law—and one the Minnesota Supreme Court has already affirmed.
What the Law Requires
Under Section 7.3 of the Minneapolis City Charter, the Mayor must maintain a minimum number of sworn police officers based on population.
In Spann v. Minneapolis City Council, the Minnesota Supreme Court made that obligation clear: the City must employ at least 731 sworn police officers. The Court also made clear this is not optional—it is a legal duty.
Where Things Stand Today
According to the petition, the Minneapolis Police Department currently employs approximately 630 officers, more than 100 below the required minimum.
This gap has persisted for years despite prior court action and clear direction from the state’s highest court.
Why This Case Was Filed
Residents and property owners brought this case after experiencing the real-world effects of prolonged understaffing.
The petition points to slower response times, reduced investigative capacity, repeated property crime, and ongoing public safety concerns across Minneapolis neighborhoods. For those involved, this is not abstract, it is part of daily life.
What UMLC Is Asking the Court to Do
UMLC is asking the court to enforce the law as written.
The petition seeks a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the Mayor to comply with the City Charter and bring staffing levels up to the required minimum. In the alternative, it asks the court to require the City to explain its continued noncompliance on an expedited basis.
Why It Matters
This case is about accountability.
When a legal requirement is clearly established—and affirmed by the courts—public officials do not have discretion to ignore it. At stake is whether laws meant to protect residents will be followed.