Distorting the Law
When the law is selectively quoted, stripped of context, or bent to fit a desired result, public trust does not merely weaken. It breaks.
The core question behind this series is simple:
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.
Current Posts in the Series:
-
Distorting the Law – Antiquated Cases
Examines the use of older, ill-fitting, or outdated authorities in place of newer and more applicable legal precedent.
-
Distorting the Law – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Examines concerns about whether an IIED claim was narrowed or reframed through selective treatment of authority and the factual record.
-
Distorting the Law – Motion to Amend Complaint
Examines concerns about whether Rule 15’s futility doctrine was used to decide disputed facts and deny amendment through premature summary-judgment reasoning.
-
Distorting the Law – “Setting Aside the Fact”
Examines concerns about whether material facts were set aside in order to dismiss a defamation per se claim at summary judgment.
-
Distorting the Law – Spousal Privilege
Examines concerns about how Minnesota spousal-privilege law was quoted, framed, and applied, including the effect of omitted limits and legal concepts drawn from other contexts.
-
Distorting the Law – The Common Interest Doctrine (2021)
Examines concerns about the treatment of the common-interest doctrine in Minnesota and whether it was used more broadly than Minnesota authority allowed.
-
Distorting the Law – The Elements of a Crime
Examines concerns about how the elements of a crime were used to dismiss a defamation per se claim at summary judgment.
More Posts Will Be Added
This page will continue to grow as new entries in the Distorting the Law series are published. Each installment explores a different example, but all serve the same purpose: to document how legal reasoning can be altered when the law is not presented fully, fairly, and in context.
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.
