In an interview Friday, Seaton said it is a possible that the language in Minneapolis' charter, which forms the basis for his client's action, is somewhat unique. It says that the city council and the mayor must fund at least 0.0017 police employees per resident of Minneapolis, or 743 licensed "peace officers." But Seaton, president of the nonprofit Upper Midwest Law Center, said he believes it is more likely that many municipalities have similar rules or provisions, and that while he isn't personally aware of another action seeking a police staffing order, it is likely similar suits have been lodged elsewhere or are coming.

Seaton, whose law center functions as a pro bono law firm, also said he and his clients are hoping their filing will spur legal actions across many cities that aim to stop police defunding campaigns and legislation.

"The defunding movement in effect started in Minneapolis in the aftermath of George Floyd's death, and we are hoping that our action, if we prevail, will help others to fight back," he said. "We hope that the opponents to 'defund the police' will explore every legal avenue they have."

"The individuals in the central cities," who are most vulnerable, "are paying the price for this folly, the folly of defunding the police," Seaton added. "Our clients are interested in having reform and improved policing, yes. But their slogan is 'and,' not 'but.' They want both reform and sufficient policing."

Indeed, Seaton and his clients point out repeatedly that many activists calling for police defunding are middle- or upper-class progressives who don't live in the poorer city areas where police patrols are needed the most.

"There is almost constant fusillades of gunfire in their neighborhood" in recent months, said Seaton, describing Minneapolis' Jordan neighborhood, where his clients, which include a former city councilman, live.

"They've had bullets flying through their apartment windows, their daughter's bedroom window," he said, while noting that Jordan is the city's original African American neighborhood. Outside a client's home, he said, a 17-year-old young woman was recently shot and killed.

In their August-filed mandamus petition, Seaton and his clients alleged that after city council members "made public and radical 'dismantle the police' pronouncements on June 7, the City Council apparently realized … the City Charter requires a vote of the citizens before reducing the police force below the required minimum of 743 [peace officers]. So … the City Council decided to defund the police incrementally" via budget slashing.

The council, according to the petition, "diverted $1.5 million from the Minneapolis Police to an Office of Violence Prevention," the petition alleged. It added that "the $193 million police budget for 2020 will reportedly be cut by $10 million."

"With a hiring freeze, no training programs, and an encouragement of officers to leave the Minneapolis police force, the City Council is accomplishing its stated goal of a quick (but illegal) dismantling of the Minneapolis police force," the petition said.

The City Attorney's Office, representing the mayor and city council, in turn lodged an opposition to the petition, arguing that the eight residents lacked standing to bring their action.

On Nov. 20, state court Judge Jamie Anderson, based in Minneapolis, denied the city's opposition to the petition.

She wrote that the city had argued that the resident-petitioners were relying "on taxpayer standing as an alternative to the injury-in-fact requirement" and that that "type of standing is inapplicable to this mandamus action."

According to Anderson, in countering the city's argument during an October hearing, Seaton and his clients said they are "beneficially interested in the City Council and Mayor performing the actions required by law, namely, funding a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per resident," a threshold they allege is not being, or soon won't be, met.

"There is a clear public duty bestowed upon the City Council and Mayor Frey — funding a police force — that affects the safety of both the Petitioners and the public at large. This public duty clearly falls within State v. Weld, which … held that 'where the object is … to enforce a public duty … any private person may move to enforce it,'" Anderson wrote in allowing the petitioners to move forward with their action while noting she was not ruling on the merits. She set an evidentiary hearing date for April.

In an email Friday, Minneapolis City Attorney Jim Rowader said that Anderson's recent ruling "only means that the judge ruled that the plaintiffs have standing to file this lawsuit."

"We will continue to defend the City on this matter, and we're confident the City will be found to have met the City Charter's police funding requirements," he added. His office said it had no further comment.

Seaton said Friday, "The city argued that somehow we [his clients] had to be shot and injured before we had standing to bring the case.

"The court insisted there should be discovery … and we have a hearing date to follow discovery, and we'll have a chance to present evidence. … We are very encouraged," Seaton added.

He also said the city had refused, so far, to provide information on the exact number of officers who have stopped actively working, but that the information should come out in discovery.

"We don't have all those facts or numbers," he said. We believe "the largest segments of the departures are retirees and officers taking disability leave."

Of the larger "defund the police" movement, he said: "The very people in central city areas the defunders claim they're helping are the ones who are suffering."

Editors Note: Often, insurance policies are called to cover property damage caused by third parties. The "defund the police" movement could potentially open the door for increased levels of vandalism, theft, and other property crimes, which in turn could cause an increase in personal and commercial property damage claims.