ST. PAUL — The state of Minnesota responded Monday, July 14, to a lawsuit challenging a new state law that requires jails to continue inmates’ medications taken before incarceration.
The memorandum filed by the state Monday argues that the lawsuit — brought by county sheriffs and several medical providers — is based on hypotheticals, and asks the court to deny the temporary injunction plaintiffs are seeking, while sheriffs and medical professionals claim the new law will to implement.
ADVERTISEMENT
On June 26, several medical providers, sheriffs and individual counties filed suit against the state over a new law passed during the 2025 legislative session requiring continuation of inmates’ medication.
Under exceptions to continuing the same medication for inmates can occur in four situations: when the person is under a Jarvis order; a licensed health care professional finds the medication medically inappropriate after consulting the original prescriber; the original prescriber approves a switch to an equally effective alternative; or the inmate provides written notice declining the medication.
The suit challenging the new medication law argued that, despite these exceptions, implementation will be difficult for several reasons, including that inmates sometimes can’t remember their prescriptions or that medical professionals may have trouble reaching the prescriber of the original medications in a timely manner.
The state wrote in the memorandum that the plaintiffs’ claims are based on “hypotheticals,” and that plaintiffs can’t prove irreparable harm and therefore must not be granted the temporary injunction. The state said that the 2025 law was passed to address real, documented harms, naming a testimony from a mother of a son who died in jail when he wasn’t given his medication.
“What they leave out, however, is the far more likely harm to inmate health that prompted the Legislature to pass the challenged statute,” the state wrote. “These harms will continue to occur if the law is enjoined.”
Sheriffs and medical professionals also argue that the new law could cause medical professionals to violate the Minnesota Medical Practice Act and the Minnesota Nurse Practice Act or place Minnesota sheriffs at peril of action against their peace officer license, exposing them to risks of criminal liability, but the state said Monday that isn’t the case.
“There is no imminent enforcement,” the state wrote. “The commissioner’s enforcement authority comes through his ability to inspect and license local jails. If the commissioner finds a violation of the law, the statute specifies administrative procedures that he may take to ensure compliance. If the commissioner imposed conditions or revocation of a license on a County Plaintiff for violating the challenged statute, they could then challenge that decision … None of the commissioner’s enforcement powers give him the ability to take action against the professional licenses of any of the Medical Plaintiffs.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The state also wrote in their memorandum, “Though Plaintiffs don’t raise it in their motion, presumably there are financial harms to them in providing the precise medications prescribed instead of substituting cheaper alternatives.”
A virtual hearing is scheduled for July 27.
The Trust Project
