ELR Citation: 48 ELR 20135
No(s). 85-CV-17-771 and 85-CV-17-516 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul 30, 2018)

A Minnesota appellate court affirmed a lower court ruling in favor of a county's zoning ordinance that bans all industrial-mineral mining, including silica-sand mining. A silica-sand mining company argued that the ordinance discriminated against its business. But the lower court disagreed, concluding that the ordinance was neither an unconstitutional limitation on interstate commerce nor a governmental taking without compensation. On appeal, the company argued that the ordinance violated the dormant Commerce Clause. But the appellate court found that the ordinance does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause because it evenhandedly bans both in-state and out-of-state interests from mining all silica sand in the county. The company further argued that it was entitled to compensation because the ordinance constituted a regulatory taking of its property. But the appellate court disagreed, concluding that the company does not have a compensable property interest for which it is owed just compensation. The appellate court therefore affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment to the county.