The Minnesota Supreme Court decided on April 26 against hearing the Lake View Natural Dairy’s (LVND) constitutional rights arguments versus the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), thus leaving a significant question mark for the dairy.

But rather than an end, this might be a new beginning for the Berglunds, said their attorney Zenas Baer.

Baer has been the Berglunds’ legal representative the last four years in a case that has involved extensive litigation between the state and the Berglund family that owns LVND.

The MDA began pursuing this matter in January 2013 when they learned that LVND owners David and Heidi Berglund were operating Lake View Natural Dairy on Maple Hill, and suspected the couple of selling unpasteurized/raw milk products to consumers.

On February 26, 2013, the MDA attempted to conduct an onsite visit to the dairy, but Mr. Berglund refused to allow inspectors access to his property, arguing that the state was violating his constitutional rights.

An inspection would almost certainly lead the state to mandate that the Berglunds install pasteurizing equipment, a move which would be prohibitively too expensive and result in closing the farm to its neighbors and friends who buy raw milk products there.

Following several attempts to contact the Berglunds, MDA inspectors traveled to the farm on September 27, 2013, and took pictures of the exterior and interior buildings on the property, a product order sheet, and the products that were marked for sale in the store. Those products included unpasteurized whole milk, skim milk, chocolate milk, colostrum, cream, yogurt, and buttermilk. After taking the pictures, the inspectors found David Berglund and requested a full inspection of the farm, which he again refused to allow.

What followed was a long back and forth between the state and the Berglunds. At an October 13, 2015, court hearing Baer argued the MDA lacked statutory authority to inspect the dairy and also argued that inspection of the dairy was prohibited under article XIII, section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution. Baer also brought up numerous other constitutional challenges. Those included the right to contract, right of privacy, the right of association, due process, and equal protection. Baer also said the state’s definition of a “dairy plant” was not defined by statute.