None. 7.

Clerk of the Appellate Courts 305 Minnesota Judicial Center 25 Rev.

Re: Arianna Anderson et al. v. City of Minneapolis Minnesota Court of Appeals File No. A24-1082 Dear Clerk of Court: Appellants Ariana Anderson et al. submit this letter in response to the City of Minneapolis’s citation to supplemental authority—Dean v. City of Winona, 843 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)—pursuant to Minn. R. Civ.

At oral argument the City stated that Winona “involved a policy or ordinance that was…more similar to the one at issue here…and the Court rejected the Equal Protection argument saying that there was no classification there…unlike in [State v. Russell, 477 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 1991)], that would allow the Court to proceed to the kind of rational basis examination that the Court undertook in Russell.” Winona contradicts this reading, as it does not limit review of Equal Protection claims to facial classifications.

Rather, according to the Winona court, “[a] facially neutral statute can violate equal protection if it is applied in a way that creates an impermissible classification or discriminates in practice.” Id. at 258–59 (citing State v. Frazier, 649 N.W.2d 828, 833–34 (Minn. 2002); Matter of McCannel, 301 N.W.2d 910, 916 (Minn. 1980); State v. Stewart, 529 N.W.2d 493, 497 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)).

Sincerely, Ben D. Kappelman Counsel for Appellants

am aware that the local rules of this court require that throughout the pendency of this case counsel of record for the party listed above must include an active member in good standing of the bar of this court.

I understand that if this Court grants me admission pro hac vice, the moving attorney identified in this motion or another active member in good standing of the bar of this court must be counsel of record on behalf of the party listed above throughout the pendency of this case as required by LR 83.5(d).

I further understand that although LR 83.5(d) does not itself require that such attorney participate in the preparation and presentation of the case, this Court, in its discretion, may order greater participation in the case by an active member in good standing of the bar of this court.

I further understand that pursuant to LR 83.6(a), if this Court grants me admission pro hac vice I must comply with the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.

I further understand that the District of Minnesota is an electronic court and that I will receive service as required by Fed. R. Civ.

am aware that the local rules of this court require that throughout the pendency of this case counsel of record for the party listed above must include an active member in good standing of the bar of this court.

I understand that if this Court grants me admission pro hac vice, the moving attorney identified in this motion or another active member in good standing of the bar of this court must be counsel of record on behalf of the party listed above throughout the pendency of this case as required by LR 83.5(d).

I further understand that although LR 83.5(d) does not itself require that such attorney participate in the preparation and presentation of the case, this Court, in its discretion, may order greater participation in the case by an active member in good standing of the bar of this court.

I further understand that pursuant to LR 83.6(a), if this Court grants me admission pro hac vice I must comply with the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.

I further understand that the District of Minnesota is an electronic court and that I will receive service as required by Fed. R. Civ.