ELR Citation: 50 ELR 20056
No(s). A18-0090 (Minn. Mar 11, 2020)

Minnesota's high court upheld an appellate 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 the ordinance violated the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against its business. The high court found that the ordinance did not, on its face, confer any benefit to in-state consumers of silica sand and thus that it was not facially discriminatory. It further found the ordinance did not benefit in-state interests at the expense of out-of-state interests, and thus concluded that it did not discriminate against interstate commerce in purpose or practical effect. The company also argued it was entitled to compensation because the ordinance constituted a regulatory taking of its property. But the high court concluded that the company did not have a fully fledged leasehold interest under Minnesota law and thus that it did not have a compensable property interest for which it was owed just compensation. It therefore upheld the appellate court ruling.