Minnesota Court Strikes Down Residential Sprinkler Requirement

The Minnesota Court of Appeals dealt a blow to the fire service yesterday in striking down a state–wide residential sprinkler requirement for new homes over 4500 square feet. The three-judge panel concluded that the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry lacked the data to support its rulemaking, but the irony of the ruling as left many of us scratching our heads.

In 2012, the MDLI sought to update the Minnesota State Building Code to incorporate the 2012 International Residential Code (IRC), which mandates residential sprinklers in all new one and two family homes.

Facing opposition from the homebuilders the MDLI opted to deviate from the IRC and carved out an exception for homes 4500 sq. ft and smaller. In other words, only homes 4500 sq. ft. and larger would require residential sprinklers. It was an appeasement… a compromise, one that did not make fire chiefs and fire marshals happy.

So what did the homebuilders do with their gift? They challenged the new requirement claiming 4500 sq. ft. was “arbitrary”, that there was not “substantial evidence” supporting the 4500 sq. ft. exception, and that proper rulemaking procedures were not followed. And they used the arguments (and testimony) of firefighters who opposed creating the 4500 sq. ft. exemption in the first place – to bolster their case.

Just to be clear, the anti-sprinkler homebuilders were not seeking to have the 4500 sq. ft. exception thrown out so that all new one and two family homes regardless of size would have to be sprinklered. No, no, no!!!! They wanted the entire sprinkler rule strickened from the updated building code.

And that is just what the court did:

“Accordingly, we hold that the Sprinkler Rule violates substantive due process because it is arbitrary and not the result of a reasoned determination…. the Sprinkler Rule’s exception for new one-family dwellings under 4,500 square feet is arbitrary and not supported by the record. Therefore, we conclude that petitioner has demonstrated that it was not the result of the application of scientific principles, approved tests, and professional judgment. Further, we conclude that respondent violated statutory rulemaking procedures by failing to adequately address the costs of complying with the Sprinkler Rule for small businesses and cities. Consequently, we declare the Sprinkler Rule invalid.”

In reaching its conclusion the court even quoted a representative of the Fire Marshals Association of Minnesota who testified at a public hearing against the 4500 sq. ft. exception saying it weakened the IRC proposal making it “a substandard code.”

When ever I review cases like this I go in trying to figure out if the judges followed the law and unfortunately came to a decision I happen to dislike, or whether the judges had a certain political agenda and applied the “Yeah… that argument will do” school of legal reason to reach their pre-determined end game.

Then I read the case syllabus:

When the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry promulgates a rule that is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, such a rule is not based on the application of scientific principles, approved tests, and professional judgment as required by Minn. Stat. § 326B.106, subd. 1 (2014).

For the non-legal scholars – it should read:

When the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry promulgates a rule that is not based on the application of scientific principles, approved tests, and professional judgment as required by Minn. Stat. § 326B.106, subd. 1 (2014) , such a rule is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

But why quibble about sound legal reasoning… The dog wags its tail… the tail wags the dog… so what’s the big deal…

Here’s the problem… there is a TON of research that supports residential sprinklers in one and two family dwellings… more than enough to satisfy any judge’s penchant for insisting on “substantial evidence in the record”… even judges who forget what they were taught in Con Law about “RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW” being deferential, and pesky little details like DEFERENCE TO AGENCY DETERMINATIONS…

Because the MDLI catered to the whims of the homebuilders (some may say compromised public safety by throwing the homebuilders an economic-political bone) by granting a sprinkler exemption for homes up to 4500 square feet, the court struck down the sprinkler requirement entirely… using the fire marshals’ arguments about why any exception was not a good idea!!!  How does that make sense? Step away from the trees and look at the forest…

Let’s hope this issue gets squarely before the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the court recognizes the irony of what just happened with an eye toward fixing the injustice.

Here is the decision: Builders Association of the Twin Cities v Minn Dept of Labor and Industries