pre-enforcement challenge in Minnesota

1994This court’s review of the rule’s validity must be confined to “the record made in the agency proceeding.” Pettersen, 347 N.W.2d at 241 (footnote omitted). [A]n agency’s interpretation of the statutes it administers is entitled to deference and should be upheld, absent a finding that it is in conflict with the express purpose of the [a]ct and the intention of the legislature.

1991Pettersen, 347 N.W.2d at 241 .

1994Minnesota-Dakotas Retail Hardware Ass’n v. State, 279 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Minn.1979); see also City of Morton v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 437 N.W.2d 741, 745-46 (Minn.App.1989) (“The scope of review in a pre-enforcement challenge to a rule is more restrictive than review of an agency’s decision in a contested enforcement proceeding.”).

1993In Manufactured Housing, the court, citing Minnesota-Dakotas Retail, suggested that the scope of a pre-enforcement declaratory judgment does not encompass an agency’s proposed interpretation of a rule: In Minnesota-Dakotas Retail Hardware Ass’n v. State, 279 N.W.2d 360 (Minn.1979), we contrasted judicial review in a contested, enforcement proceeding with a pre-enforcement rule challenge.

2015A pre-enforcement challenge “questions the process by which the rule was made and the rule’s general validity before it is enforced against any particular party.” Minn. Chamber of Commerce v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 469 N.W.2d 100, 102 (Minn.App.1991) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991).

2015A pre-enforcement challenge “questions the process by which the rule was made and the rule’s general validity before it is enforced against any particular party.” Minn. Chamber of Commerce v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 469 N.W.2d 100, 102 (Minn. App. 1991) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991).

2015Thus, to establish standing in a pre-enforcement challenge, a petitioner must assert more than “a mere possibility of an injury or mere interest in a problem.” Coalition of Greater Minn. Cities v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 765 N.W.2d 159, 163 (Minn.App.2009), review denied (Minn. Aug. 11, 2009).

2015Thus, to establish standing in a pre-enforcement challenge, a petitioner must assert more than “a mere possibility of an injury or mere interest in a problem.” Coalition of Greater Minn. Cities v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 765 N.W.2d 159, 163 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Aug. 11, 2009).

2015The petitioner’s “direct interest” in the validity of the challenged rule must be “different in character from the interest of the citizenry in general.” Rocco Altobelli, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Commerce, 524 N.W.2d 30, 34 (Minn.App.1994) (quotation omitted).

2015The petitioner’s “direct interest” in the validity of the challenged rule must be “different in character from the interest of the citizenry in general.” Rocco Altobelli, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Commerce, 524 N.W.2d 30, 34 (Minn. App. 1994) (quotation omitted).

2015Cf. Save Mille 9 Lacs Sportfishing, Inc., v. Minn. Dep’t of Natural Res. 859 N.W.2d 845, 851 (Minn. App. 2015) (holding that the absence of a citation to or analysis of a relevant constitutional or common-law principle by an administrative agency in rulemaking does not provide grounds for declaring the rule invalid in a pre-enforcement challenge).

1999See Minnesota Education Ass’n, 499 N.W.2d at 850 (“If the MEA is to challenge the reasonableness of the rule as applied, it may make that challenge in a contested case hearing when the agency seeks to enforce the rule.”).

1994Minnesota-Dakotas Retail Hardware Ass’n v. State, 279 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Minn.1979); see also City of Morton v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 437 N.W.2d 741, 745-46 (Minn.App.1989) (“The scope of review in a pre-enforcement challenge to a rule is more restrictive than review of an agency’s decision in a contested enforcement proceeding.”).

1988In Minnesota Association of Homes for the Aging v. Department of Human Services, 385 N.W.2d 65, 67-68 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (“MAHA”), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. June 13, 1986), this court, after quoting from Minn.Stat. § 14.45, stated: This pre-enforcement challenge must be distinguished from a contested case action where a rule is sought to be enforced against a particular party and the validity of the rule as applied to that party is adjudicated.