Battle lines of judicial activism, from our own Minnesota Supreme Court

  • Article by: D.J. TICE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: June 1, 2014 - 10:24 AM

The crucible: A case over whether drunken driving is ever acceptable, even to escape danger.

hide

The justices of the Minnesota Supreme Court, during a question-and-answer period last month at Champlin Park High School.

Photo: Richard Sennott • Star Tribune,

CameraStar Tribune photo galleries

Cameraview larger

Just in time for the political season, the Minnesota Supreme Court has made its own future another issue voters might want to consider.

Could this state’s high court become like the famously fractious U.S. Supreme Court? Could it split into ideological blocs, largely defined by the governor who appointed the justices, and with each bloc championing a starkly different philosophy about the proper role of courts in our democracy?

The questions seem pertinent in the wake of a difficult case that emerged from the collision of two social scourges — drunken driving and domestic abuse — and ended in a collision of two core judicial approaches — commonly called “restraint” and “activism.”

The case posed this dilemma: Should a victimized wife be excused for driving drunk to flee a rampaging abuser?

The court said “no” earlier this month, in a contentious 4-3 ruling.

On Memorial Day weekend 2011, Jennifer Axelberg and her husband, Jason, argued after a night of drinking at a resort. He turned violent, hitting her twice and breaking her car’s windshield after she locked herself in it. She then drove away, about a mile back to the resort. He pursued, and both were soon arrested — she for drunken driving after testing at double the legal blood-alcohol limit.

Axelberg’s driver’s license was revoked. She appealed, saying she should be able to plead “necessity” — a traditional common-law defense.

But writing for the majority, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea held that the necessity defense is not available to Axelberg under Minnesota law. The Legislature, Gildea said, has explicity limited the issues courts may consider in an appeal of license revocation — and necessity isn’t one of them.

If that limitation seems unjust, the chief justice added, “[t]his public policy concern should be directed to the Legislature.” The court “must read this state’s laws as they are, not as some argue they should be.”

Gildea was joined by Justices G. Barry Anderson, David Stras and Christopher Dietzen. All four were appointed to the high court by Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Three justices dissented emphatically. Each wrote separately and joined the dissents of the others. In what constitutes strong language for this often courteous court, they called the majority’s ruling “stingy” and “slavish” and satirized it as meaning that “losing the privilege to drive is a small price to pay for saving your life.”

Judicial review should not be “mechanical,” they argued, but “a place where justice can be done.”

Two of the dissenters, Wilhelmina Wright and David Lillehaug, were recently appointed by DFL Gov. Mark Dayton and will face voters in a re-election bid for the first time this fall. The other dissenting justice, Alan Page, directly elected to the court in 1992, is its senior member and liberal lion.

Let’s stipulate, as the lawyers say, that Axelberg is a hard case. Society’s concern for victims of domestic abuse is, and should be, almost unbounded. But heartbreaking, too, are the ravages of drunken driving. It’s been only through steadily tougher laws and stiffening social intolerance that significant (but still inadequate) progress has been made reducing it.

Historically, lenient local judges have been one of the obstacles in combating drunken driving. That may have been on legislators’ minds when they limited what courts could consider in revocation appeals.

In his dissent, Justice Lillehaug noted that the statute in question gives the Department of Public Safety (which also hears appeals of revocations) latitude to consider “any … material information” in deciding whether the revocation is merited. Presumably, that could include claims about necessity.

“It is troubling,” Lillehaug wrote, “that, under the majority’s reading, the statute gives an administrative reviewer authority to do justice, while the judiciary cannot.”

But limiting judges’ discretion in drunken-driving cases appears to be just what lawmakers intended. In a single section of a single statute, they gave the power of open-ended review to the agency that issues driver’s licenses but “limited … the scope” of judges’ review. Was that an accident?

  • get related content delivered to your inbox

  • manage my email subscriptions

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Will the Gophers bring home The Axe?

Weekly Question
 
Close