ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Minnesota's Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the funding plan for a new Vikings football stadium, eliminating a legal obstacle that threatened a last-minute derailment of the project.
Minnesota finance officials postponed a $468 million bond sale while the case was pending. After the ruling, the chairwoman of the government authority managing the construction said she believed the project could be kept on schedule, despite earlier worries about possible delays and cost overruns.
"We are confident that we will be able to move forward very quickly, to get the financing in place for the bond sale and to keep things on track," said Michele Kelm-Helgen, board chairwoman for the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority.
The nearly $1 billion stadium, on the Metrodome site in downtown Minneapolis, has a planned opening of July 2016.
Doug Mann, an activist and former Minneapolis mayoral candidate, filed the Supreme Court lawsuit on Jan. 10, arguing the stadium funding plan was unconstitutional. But the state's highest court disagreed.
State law "does not confer original jurisdiction on the court to resolve all challenges to legislation authorizing the use of appropriation bonds," the court's five-page ruling read. It was unsigned and issued "per curiam," meaning on behalf of the entire court. Justice Alan Page, a former Minnesota Vikings player, did not participate.
In other words, the court told Mann that he should have challenged the constitutionality of the bond sale in a district court lawsuit, not to the Supreme Court. Mann had previously filed a similar lawsuit in Hennepin County, which a judge dismissed.
The Supreme Court ruling noted that Mann had a petition on that matter pending with the Minnesota Court of Appeals. But that court also denied Mann's petition on Tuesday, saying he filed the wrong type of appeal and has now missed the deadline for filing a proper one.
In a statement Tuesday, Mann said he will consider his appeal options against the city of Minneapolis and decide whether to take further action within a few days. But he noted that given the Supreme Court's ruling — and the "amazingly quick action" by that court and the Court of Appeals — "a request for review by the Supreme Court seems unlikely to be granted."