Special Release Opinion – Released September 22, 2025
A24-0694 Inquiry into the Conduct of the Honorable John P. Dehen.
1. A judge does not commit misconduct by making findings of fact, reaching a legal conclusion, or applying the law as understood by the judge unless the judge acts contrary to clear and determined law and the error is egregious, made in bad faith, or made as part of a pattern or practice of legal error.
2. A judge violates the Code of Judicial Conduct by improperly issuing two writs of mandamus compelling a district court administrator to increase the compensation for the judge’s court reporter, despite having a conflict of interest, and without giving the district court administrator a meaningful opportunity to respond, when clear and determined law proscribes such actions and the judge’s contrary position therefore represents egregious error.
3. A judge does not violate Rule 2.3(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct by making rulings in proceedings under Minnesota Statutes chapter 257D, even if those rulings are erroneous, when those rulings are neither foreclosed by clear and determined law nor the product of actual bias or prejudice.
4. A judge violates the Code of Judicial Conduct by conducting a remote calendar from a moving car in order to be able to travel to attend a family function.
5. Censure and suspension from judicial duties for nine months (or from the practice of law for a term equal to the balance of the judicial suspension if the judge ceases to be a judge before the term of judicial suspension ends) without pay is warranted for a judge who violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by improperly issuing two writs of mandamus compelling a district court administrator to increase the compensation for the judge’s court reporter, despite having a conflict of interest, and without giving the district court administrator a meaningful opportunity to respond, and by improperly presiding over a remote court calendar while riding in a moving vehicle.
6. A public reprimand as an attorney is warranted for a judge who engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by improperly issuing two writs of mandamus compelling a district court administrator to increase the compensation for the judge’s court reporter, despite having a conflict of interest, and without giving the district court administrator a meaningful opportunity to respond, and by improperly presiding over a remote court calendar while riding in a moving vehicle.
Per Curiam.
Took no part, Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.