The Minnesota Court of Appeals is approaching a decision regarding Brooklyn Park City Council Member Maria Tran’s lawsuit against the city itself, the mayor and Tran’s council colleagues. Months after a Hennepin County Court judge dismissed the case with prejudice, the higher court heard oral arguments July 15 from legal counsel for both sides.

Tran’s case aims multiple counts of misconduct toward Mayor Hollies Winston, as well as 2023-2024 council members Christian Eriksen, Nichole Klonowski, XP Lee and Tony McGarvey. Tran argues that her peers violated her rights, unlawfully spent public funds, violated Minnesota’s open meeting law and engaged in defamation. The lawsuit also claims the city of Brooklyn Park itself engaged in discrimination.

Tran brought in a new lawyer, Marshall Tanick, to file her lawsuit in the Minnesota Court of Appeals late last year. He opened his 15-minute oral argument by describing Tran as a “Vietnamese native who has overcome many obstacles in her life” to join the Brooklyn Park City Council. “But she has encountered more challenges there, and that’s why we’re here today,” he said.

Tanick asked the higher court to reconsider multiple aspects of Judge Bridget Sullivan’s November ruling. He described Tran’s 2024 censure as the “most sensitive and most important issue” to the case.

“This case, as the court is aware, concerns a number of issues and claims raised by Ms. Tran, highlighted by defamation and what we feel is an unlawful censure and sanctions imposed upon her,” Tanick said.

The appeals court judges highlighted the lower court’s ruling that Brooklyn Park’s Code of Conduct for Elected Officials, upon which the censure was based, was constitutionally protected and therefore did not violate Tran’s first amendment rights. Judge Anne Rasmusson asked Tanick to describe the lower court’s reasoning.

“Well, its reasoning was that the censure was appropriate under the circumstances,” Tanick replied. He then noted that the higher court could “avoid the constitutional issues altogether” by ruling the censure was not appropriate based on the city’s Code of Conduct.

“The code itself, under which the censure was purportedly administered, does not provide for censure for statements made by an elected official at a public council meeting,” Tanick said.

Tran’s censure stemmed from a complaint filed in January 2024, when a city staff member accused her of violating Brooklyn Park’s Respectful Workplace Policy and the Code of Conduct for Elected Officials. An investigator hired by the city determined that Tran “unfairly criticized” the employee’s work performance.

The council originally planned to issue a formal reprimand to Tran at a May 2024 meeting, but Tran made statements that doubled down on her assertions and verbally argued with her council colleagues. The meeting adjourned early, and the proposed reprimand was later upgraded to a censure.

“There is nothing in the code that authorizes a censure for statements made at a public meeting, and in this case, the record is clear that the censure was imposed for one and only one reason… It says, ‘the reason we’re imposing the censure is because of Ms. Tran’s statements during the council meeting of May 28,” Tanick argued.

Paul Reuvers, the attorney representing the defendants, opened his own 15 minutes by asking the judges to affirm the lower court’s ruling. He went on to highlight other claims that Tran has made, many of which resurfaced throughout court proceedings last year.

“The record is replete with just these bizarre allegations of the conspiracy perpetrated against her by staff, city council members, the police chief, Brooklyn Park Police Department, the media,” he said. “Frankly, just bizarre stuff.”

Reuvers argued the lower court was not asked to rule on the censure itself, but rather the legality of the Code of Conduct as a whole ”We view the policy as fully constitutional,” he said.

Tanick has claimed the Code of Conduct is “unconstitutionally overbroad” and restricts free speech by disallowing elected officials to publicly criticise city staff. Reuvers was asked to address that argument.

“I believe the city has the ability to implement rules and regulations so we can work efficiently, and it’s common for municipal governments to have rules of conduct in my experience,” Reuvers replied. “There are alternative paths for Ms. Tran to approach the city manager with any issue and to address any concern she has appropriately that way.”

After a five-minute rebuttal from Tanick, the Court of Appeals thanked the legal counsel for both sides and noted the matter was “fully submitted.” A decision must be reached within 90 days of the oral arguments, meaning the court’s ruling could be announced as late as mid-October.

If either side is dissatisfied with the appellate judges’ ruling, the next stop for the case would be the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Court document details

Various documents have been filed with the Court of Appeals in the months leading up to oral arguments.

Those filed by Reuvers repeatedly detail instances in which Tran voiced concern that various city officials and her former campaign worker wanted to physically harm or kill her.

Tran brought multiple allegations to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center in September 2023. According to Reuvers, Tran accused the mayor of “illegally obtaining licenses for marijuana,” and said, “he was abusing her because the city manager was trying to hide what Tran reported” about misuse of public funds and other illegal activity. Reuvers noted that Tran’s MAARC report was found to be unsubstantiated.

Tran’s lawsuit claims her fellow council members violated the Minnesota Open Meeting Law when they convened for a closed meeting to discuss the investigation. Reuvers argues that the meeting was required to be closed under that same law. He claims that Tran voted in favor of holding the closed meeting and that she did not voice any objection to a proposed written reprimand.

Council Member Boyd Morson, who was not included in Tran’s lawsuit, cast the sole vote against closing the meeting.

Tran’s lawsuit alleges that multiple comments made by her council peers constituted defamation. The following were highlighted in particular: the statement that Tran has acknowledged her violation of the Code of Conduct; various statements made by the mayor and council members implying that Tran is mentally ill or dangerous; and various statements that Tran posed a safety concern in council chambers.

Reuvers argues that “Tran’s bizarre behavior took a dark and disturbing turn” when she called the Brooklyn Park Police Department to inquire about obtaining a gun permit in September 2024. According to testimony from Sergeant Derek Zielin, Tran did not want to provide her address as part of the permit application out of concern other council members would come to her home and assault her.

Documents filed by Tanick, meanwhile, refute the rulings of the lower court.

Tanick claims the closed meeting violated state statute because the topic of discussion, an investigative report about Tran, constituted “public data” under the Data Practices Act.

Tanick also argues that “statements implying a lack of mental competence” are not “constitutionally protected statements of opinion,” as the lower court ruled. As for Tran’s claim that certain actions against her violated the Human Rights Act, Tanick reiterates that the mayor and council members “regarded” her as having a disability.

Further, Tanick claims that Tran’s rights were violated when she was censured, as it resulted in “severe and unprecedented restrictions on her duties as an elected official.”

Tanick ultimately asks the appeals court to reverse the lower court’s decision and to bring the lawsuit to trial.