Could a Minnesota public school bar a graduating senior from walking across the stage at graduation because of unpaid school lunch debt?

Plain-English summary

In May 2019, just before the spring graduation season, Education Commissioner Mary Cathryn Ricker informed AG Keith Ellison that several Minnesota school districts had policies restricting students' ability to participate in graduation ceremonies when those students had unpaid school meal debt. She asked whether the practice violated Minnesota law.

The AG concluded it did, on two independent legal grounds.

First, the Minnesota Public School Fee Law (Minn. Stat. §§ 123B.34-39). § 123B.35 sets the policy: "It is the policy of the state of Minnesota that public school education shall be free." And it explicitly identifies "any practice leading to suspension, coercion, exclusion, withholding of grades or diplomas, or discriminatory action based upon nonpayment of fees" as denying pupils "their right to equal protection and entitled privileges." § 123B.37, subd. 2 then bars schools from denying or abridging "any pupil's rights or privileges, including the receipt of grades or diplomas" for nonpayment of fees.

The AG worked through two issues to apply the Fee Law: whether the lunch charge was a "fee" within the Law, and whether the privilege of walking at graduation fell within the protected category.

On the first issue, the lunch charge was an authorized fee. § 123B.36, subd. 1(b)(6) authorizes "fees specifically permitted by any other statute"; federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1760(p)(2)) requires school food authorities to set a price for paid lunches; and state law (the pre-2021 § 124D.111, subd. 4) acknowledges school meal charges. § 123B.36, subd. 1(b)(5) also authorizes fees for "items of personal use or products that a student has an option to purchase," which can include a meal. Either way, the lunch charge was a fee.

On the second issue, the AG applied two textual cues from § 123B.37, subd. 2. The word "including" before "the receipt of grades or diplomas" is non-exclusive (Fed. Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., U.S. 1941; LaMont v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 728, Minn. 2012). Graduation participation is a "privilege" within the broader statutory protection. Cases from other states (Nieshe v. Concrete Sch. Dist., Wash. 2005; Williams v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., W.D. Tex. 1992) and the Minnesota federal court (Olson v. Robbinsdale Area Schools, D. Minn. 2004) had held that graduation participation is not a constitutional property right comparable to the diploma itself but rather an important educational benefit or privilege, analogous to participation in extracurricular athletics under Brown v. Wells (Minn. 1970).

So Fee Law analysis: lunch is a fee, graduation participation is a privilege protected from fee-nonpayment-based denial, and the exclusion practice violates § 123B.37, subd. 2.

Second, the (pre-2021) lunch-aid law. § 124D.111, subd. 4 then provided that schools participating in the federal lunch program "must . . . ensure that any reminders for payment of outstanding student meal balances do not demean or stigmatize any child participating in the school lunch program." The AG read graduation exclusion as a "reminder" of the unpaid debt, with the message communicated to the student and to everyone watching: this student has unpaid lunch debt and that is why he or she is not graduating with peers. That message demeans and stigmatizes. The practice violated subd. 4.

The opinion closed by acknowledging that the Legislature was at that time considering changes to strengthen the lunch-aid framework. Indeed, the Legislature did so in 2021 by adding subd. 5(a), which the AG later applied in Op. Atty. Gen. 169i (Nov. 17, 2022) to extend the analysis to alternate-meal-for-debt practices.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2019. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

In particular: the Minnesota Legislature substantially strengthened Minn. Stat. § 124D.111 in 2021 by adding subdivision 5(a), which explicitly prohibits limiting a student's participation in graduation ceremonies and other extracurriculars due to meal debt. The AG's November 17, 2022 opinion (Op. Atty. Gen. 169i) applied the amended statute to alternate-meal-for-debt practices. Minnesota has since adopted universal free school meals legislation, which substantially reduces the day-to-day relevance of the meal-debt scenario. The legal principle that schools cannot use unpaid fees to exclude students from graduation persists, but the specific statutory citations have evolved.

What this opinion meant at the time

For school boards in 2019 facing the immediate graduation season, the opinion was a clear instruction to permit all academically eligible students to walk at graduation regardless of meal debt. Districts that had been operating with policies tying graduation participation to debt clearance had to revise those policies before commencement.

For school administrators and principals, the opinion gave them legal cover to override prior board policies if needed, since AG opinions on school matters were (and remain) binding on school officers under Minn. Stat. § 8.07 until overruled by a court. Eelkema v. Bd. of Educ. of Duluth (Minn. 1943) and Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Anoka-Hennepin Sch. Dist. (Minn. Ct. App. 2015) confirm this binding effect.

For school district attorneys at the time, the opinion drew a clear line between collection actions (still allowed: the school could pursue the debt through legal collection) and exclusion-based pressure (prohibited). Update the district's debt-collection policy to use legitimate adult-directed channels for unpaid balances.

For parents of graduating seniors at the time, the opinion was usable directly: if a school told you your child could not participate in graduation because of meal debt, the AG had ruled the school could not do that. The Department of Education had a role under § 8.07 and through general Department oversight to enforce.

For student advocacy groups, the opinion was an important step in the broader lunch-shaming reform that culminated in the 2021 statutory amendment.

Common questions

Q: Did this opinion mean the school couldn't even withhold the diploma itself?
A: The opinion quoted § 123B.37, subd. 2 which explicitly says "including the receipt of grades or diplomas" cannot be denied for fee nonpayment. So no, the school could not withhold the diploma either.

Q: Could the school still pursue collection for the unpaid balance?
A: Yes. The opinion's last paragraph specifically preserved the school's right to "pursue legal collection action for unpaid fees." The point was that the collection mechanism could not be tied to denying the student's educational rights.

Q: Was this opinion only about formal "graduation" or also about other end-of-year ceremonies?
A: The opinion focused on graduation ceremonies, but the underlying privilege/rights framework would apply equally to other school activities that count as "rights or privileges" under § 123B.37, subd. 2. The 2021 amendment made this explicit by enumerating school activities, field trips, athletics, activity clubs, and extracurriculars.

Q: Was the AG opinion limited to public schools, or did it cover charter and private schools too?
A: The opinion expressly noted that "public schools" includes Minnesota public elementary and secondary schools, school districts, and charter schools subject to the Public School Fee Law. Private schools that do not receive state aid through the Fee Law framework were not directly addressed, though those participating in the federal lunch program were subject to § 124D.111.

Q: How is this opinion related to the November 17, 2022 alternate-meal opinion?
A: The 2019 opinion was the earlier ruling under the pre-2021 statute. The 2022 opinion applied the strengthened 2021 statute (subd. 5(a)) to the related but distinct practice of providing alternate meals to students with debt. Both opinions are part of a coherent line of Minnesota AG analysis on meal-debt practices.

Q: Did any school district challenge this opinion in court?
A: The opinion notes it is binding on school officers until overruled by a court, citing Eelkema and Minnesota Voters Alliance. As of this writing, no court has overruled it. The 2021 statutory amendment codified the principle, making future court challenge less likely.

Background and statutory framework

The Minnesota Public School Fee Law (Minn. Stat. §§ 123B.34-.39), with § 123B.35's policy that public school education is free and § 123B.37, subd. 2's prohibition on denying rights or privileges for fee nonpayment, has been on the books for decades. The Law contemplates "authorized fees" under § 123B.36, subd. 1(b), but tightly constrains practices linked to nonpayment.

The pre-2021 version of Minn. Stat. § 124D.111, subd. 4 was a brief provision requiring school participants in the federal lunch program to ensure that reminders for unpaid balances "do not demean or stigmatize" any child in the program. The 2019 opinion was the first formal AG application of that provision to a specific school practice.

The Federal school lunch framework runs through 42 U.S.C. § 1760(p)(2), which requires school food authorities to set a price for paid lunches served to students not certified for free or reduced-price meals.

The interpretive framework drew on the "including" canon (Fed. Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., U.S. 1941; LaMont, Minn. 2012), which treats the word "including" in statutes as non-exhaustive. Cases on graduation participation as a privilege rather than a constitutional property right came from Nieshe v. Concrete Sch. Dist. (Wash. 2005), Williams v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist. (W.D. Tex. 1992), and Olson v. Robbinsdale Area Schools (D. Minn. 2004). The Minnesota Supreme Court's Brown v. Wells (1970) established that participation in interscholastic sports is a privilege; the AG analogized graduation participation to the same category.

AG opinions on school matters under Minn. Stat. § 8.07 are "decisive" until overruled by a court (Eelkema, Minn. 1943; Minnesota Voters Alliance, Minn. Ct. App. 2015).

The 2021 amendment codified and expanded the principle by adding § 124D.111, subd. 5(a) and 5(b), which the AG applied in the November 17, 2022 alternate-meal opinion.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- Minn. Stat. § 8.07
- Minn. Stat. § 120A.10
- Minn. Stat. §§ 123B.34-.39 (Public School Fee Law)
- Minn. Stat. § 123B.35
- Minn. Stat. § 123B.36, subd. 1(b)
- Minn. Stat. § 123B.37, subd. 2
- Minn. Stat. § 124D.111, subd. 4 (pre-2021 version)
- 42 U.S.C. § 1760(p)(2)

Cases:
- Fed. Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95 (1941)
- LaMont v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 728, 814 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. 2012)
- Olson v. Robbinsdale Area Schools, No. Civ. 04-2707, 2004 WL 1212081 (D. Minn. 2004)
- Brown v. Wells, 288 Minn. 468, 181 N.W.2d 708 (1970)
- Nieshe v. Concrete Sch. Dist., 129 Wash. App. 632, 127 P.3d 713 (2005)
- Williams v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 796 F. Supp. 251 (W.D. Tex. 1992)
- Eelkema v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Duluth, 215 Minn. 590, 11 N.W.2d 76 (Minn. 1943)
- Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Anoka-Hennepin Sch. Dist., 868 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/169j-20190514.pdf

Original opinion text

SCHOOL PUPILS: GRADUATION: FEES: Public schools are prohibited from denying students, who are eligible to receive their diploma, the opportunity to participate in graduation ceremonies due to unpaid meal debts.

169j
(cr.ref. 169x)
May 14, 2019

Mary Cathryn Ricker
Commissioner
Minnesota Department of Education

Dear Commissioner Ricker:

Thank you for asking the Attorney General's Office to provide a written opinion on whether denying a student's opportunity to participate in graduation ceremonies or activities because of an unpaid meal debt violates state law. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 8.07 (2018), here is our response.

FACTS

You indicated that you have recently become aware that several Minnesota school districts have policies that restrict a student's ability to participate in graduation ceremonies or activities when the student has an unpaid school meal debt owing to the school.

QUESTION

You have asked whether the practice of restricting a student from participating in graduation ceremonies or activities because the student has an outstanding school meal debt violates Minnesota statutes.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

In my opinion, public schools are prohibited under Minnesota statutes from denying students the opportunity to participate in graduation ceremonies due to unpaid meal charges. I base this opinion on both the Minnesota Public School Fee Law, Minn. Stat. §§ 123B.34-39, (the "Law") and the Lunch Aid Law, Minn. Stat. § 124D.111, subd. 4.

Minnesota Public School Fee Law:

"It is the policy of the state of Minnesota that public school education shall be free." Minn. Stat. § 123B.35. The Minnesota Public School Fee Law explicitly provides:

No pupil's rights or privileges, including the receipt of grades or diplomas may be denied or abridged for nonpayment of fees...

Minn. Stat. § 123B.37, subd. 2.

The Law further provides:

Any practice leading to suspension, coercion, exclusion, withholding of grades or diplomas, or discriminatory action based upon nonpayment of fees denies pupils their right to equal protection and entitled privileges.

Minn. Stat. § 123B.35.

First, a charge for a meal by a public school is a "fee" subject to the Public School Fee Law. Minn. Stat. § 123B.36, subd. 1(b) lists "authorized fees" that a public school may require payment, and subdivision 1(b)(6) authorizes: "fees specifically permitted by any other statute." Both federal (see 42 U.S.C. § 1760(p)(2)) and state (Minn. Stat. § 124D.111, subd. 4) statutes authorize participating schools to charge a fee for meals for qualified students.

Second, the Law applies to students' participation in graduation ceremonies. While section 123B.37, subd 2 cited above expressly cites "grades or diplomas," its use of the introductory term "including" means the statutory prohibition is not limited to those examples. See Fed. Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 100 (1941); LaMont v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 728, 814 N.W.2d 14, 19 (Minn. 2012).

In general, many courts across the country have held that participation in a graduation ceremony does not constitute a constitutional property right in the same way as the right to receive a diploma or degree when one has met all academic requirements. Participation in graduation ceremonies is more likely a privilege, akin to participation in extracurricular athletic activities. See Olson v. Robbinsdale Area Schools, No. Civ. 04-2707, 2004 WL 1212081 *4 (D. Minn. 2004).

Accordingly, I conclude that participation in a graduation ceremony constitutes a benefit or privilege, for which public schools cannot deny or abridge for nonpayment of fees under section 123B.37, subd. 2.

Graduation ceremonies are significant events and a memorable way to celebrate the important achievement of graduation with families, fellow students, and teachers. Participation in graduation ceremonies is a privilege, and therefore, a public school cannot exclude a student from participating in the school activity based upon nonpayment of fees. Minn. Stat. § 123B.37, subd. 2. Moreover, this practice leading to exclusion or discriminatory action based upon nonpayment of fees denies students their right to equal protection and entitled privileges as provided by Minn. Stat. § 123B.35.

Lunch Aid Law:

In addition to the Public School Fee Law, public schools participating in the School Lunch Program under current Minnesota law are expressly prohibited from demeaning or stigmatizing students for outstanding student meal balances:

The [school] must also ensure that any reminders for payment of outstanding student meal balances do not demean or stigmatize any child participating in the school lunch program.

Minn. Stat. § 124D.111, subd. 4. Denying students the opportunity to participate in their school graduation due to nonpayment of meals is a reminder or message to others that would demean or stigmatize students. That is prohibited under Section 124D.111, subd. 4.

In sum, schools retain the right to pursue legal collection action for unpaid fees. But public schools are prohibited from denying students who are eligible to receive their diploma the opportunity to participate in graduation ceremonies due to unpaid meal debts, under the Public School Fee and State School Lunch Aid Laws.

CONCLUSION

I understand that there is pending legislation to strengthen the enforcement, reporting and policies regarding school meals and lunch aid. I support that legislation. In the meantime, because we are in the midst of high school graduation season, I am issuing this Written Opinion that is binding on school officers unless overruled by a court.

Sincerely,

KEITH ELLISON
Attorney General