Justice-Denied.org series
Distorting the Law
When legal authority is narrowed, reframed, or taken out of context.
This series follows the reasoning—not merely the result—to ask whether the law was stated accurately before it was applied.
Series library
Explore Distorting the Law
Published entries appear here automatically as the series grows.
The Price of Unverified Caselaw
Read analysis →An Order That Answers a Different Motion
Read analysis →When the Law Hallucinates
Read analysis →Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Read analysis →Antiquated Cases
Read analysis →The Elements of a Crime
Read analysis →Setting Aside the Fact
Read analysis →Motion to Amend Complaint
Read analysis →The Common Interest Doctrine (2021)
Read analysis →Spousal Privilege
Read analysis →Ellipses, Omitted Text, and the Appearance of Bias
Read analysis →Did They Think We Wouldn’t Notice?
Read analysis →The core question behind this series is simple:
Was the law applied as it actually exists, or was it first reframed, narrowed, or distorted?
Distorting the Law is a Justice-Denied.org series examining a problem that reaches far beyond any single case. Courts are expected to apply the law faithfully, in context, and with intellectual honesty. But when authorities are selectively quoted, older cases are used in place of newer and better-fitting precedent, or legal doctrines are imported from contexts where they do not properly belong, the result can be something very different from neutral adjudication.
This series is not built on the idea that every legal error proves bad faith. It is built on something more fundamental: public trust depends on the law being stated accurately before it is applied. If the public cannot trust that legal standards are being quoted fairly, framed honestly, and used in context, confidence in the judicial system inevitably erodes.
That concern is not merely philosophical. Minnesota’s own judicial standards require judges to uphold and apply the law fairly and impartially, and make clear that fairness requires a judge to remain objective and open-minded. This series does not assume that every mistaken ruling reflects misconduct. It asks a narrower but more important question: when the law is selectively quoted, narrowed, or applied out of context, has the judicial obligation of fair and impartial decision-making been honored?
Why This Series Matters
In today’s legal landscape in Minnesota, these issues matter because they affect real rights in real cases. Privilege disputes can determine whether private communications remain protected. Discovery rulings can decide whether important evidence is exposed or buried. Summary-judgment decisions can end a case without trial. And the authorities a court chooses can shape the entire legal framework through which a litigant’s claims are viewed.
That is why Distorting the Law focuses not merely on outcomes, but on method. The series examines whether the law, as quoted and applied, remained true to the law as it actually stands. Some entries focus on privilege. Some focus on precedent. Some focus on doctrinal framing. But all ask the same underlying question: Was the legal analysis fair, accurate, and complete?
Justice is not preserved merely by reaching a result. It is preserved by showing the parties — and the public — that the result was reached through a fair and faithful application of the law.
What Judicial Fairness Requires
In the end, judicial decisions do not preserve public trust merely by reaching an outcome. They preserve it by showing the parties — and the public — that justice was done.
Minnesota’s own Code of Judicial Conduct sets that expectation. It requires judges to perform their duties fairly and impartially, and explains that fairness requires a judge to be objective and open-minded.
That is not a technicality. It is the foundation of public trust. The Minnesota Supreme Court has said the same in equally clear terms: a judge must promote public confidence in the judiciary, avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, and perform judicial duties in a way that assures parties their case is being fairly judged.
“[I]mpartiality is the very foundation of the American judicial system.”
“To maintain public trust and confidence in the judiciary, judges should avoid the appearance of impropriety and should act to assure that parties have no reason to think their case is not being fairly judged.”
Greer v. State, 673 N.W.2d 151, 155 (Minn. 2004);
Pederson v. State, 649 N.W.2d 161, 164–65 (Minn. 2002).
And fairness is impossible when a judge stops being objective, stops being open-minded, or gives the parties reason to doubt that the law was applied with impartial care.
