Presiding over remote court calendar while riding in car among reasons for judge's suspension
A Minnesota judge was reprimanded and suspended from office without pay for nine months, for abusing his authority in a dispute over his court reporter’s pay and presiding over a remote court calendar from a moving car. But a third allegation concerning bias against noncitizen juveniles was not a factor in the sanction.
The Minnesota Supreme Court suspended Judge John P. Dehen of the Tenth Judicial District in Anoka County in a Sept. 22 opinion.
Dehen was on his way to a swim meet in which a family member was competing when he presided over a juvenile court calendar that included confidential matters, the court said. His wife was driving and he was a passenger.
Conducting proceedings from the car was “not consistent with decorum in proceedings before the court,” the court said. Dehen also failed to place his judicial duties ahead of his personal activities, according to the per curiam opinion.
The misconduct, however, was less serious than Dehen’s “particularly egregious” actions in the dispute over his court reporter’s pay, the court stated. He issued two writs of mandamus that ordered a court administrator to raise his court reporter’s pay, despite a conflict of interest, and did not give the administrator a meaningful opportunity to respond, according to the opinion.
Court reporter salaries are set by a union collective bargaining agreement, with those at step 11 on the salary scale earning the highest, according to the opinion. For Dehen’s court reporter, the salary was at a step 2, making her one of the lowest-paid court reporters in the judicial branch. Another court reporter had been able to earn a higher salary by resigning and then being immediately rehired at a higher step.
Dehen’s court reporter resigned in September 2023 and Dehen immediately posted the position, with a closing date two days later. He was then informed that the court administrator could only rehire his reporter at her former salary. The administrator cited a union arbitration decision finding that judges can’t set compensation for court reporters.
“Judge Dehen did not accept that response,” the opinion states.
Dehen then filed an order appointing the court reporter and filed a writ of mandamus requiring the administrator to pay her at step 11. After an appeals court vacated his order, Dehen “doubled down, repackaged it—creating his own ‘facts’ of which he took judicial notice—and submitted a second writ of mandamus,” the state supreme court said. The new order required the administrator to rehire the court reporter at the midpoint of the salary range.
The court of appeals once again vacated Dehen’s order.
According to the state supreme court, Dehen’s actions “wasted precious judicial resources and disrespected the rule of law and the administration of justice that he took an oath to uphold. And by introducing the tools of litigation into what was essentially a human-resources issue, Judge Dehen also damaged the professional functioning of the judicial branch.”
Dehan’s conduct in the pay dispute gave the impression that a judge “may treat their office as a weapon to be used in professional disputes,” the court said. Dehen “repeatedly abused his position of authority, wielding his power differential over district court staff and other employees like a cudgel.”
The court recognized that Dehen had a good-faith belief his court reporter was being treated unfairly, but the way he chose to resolve the dispute was “clearly wrong,” the court said. In addition, Dehen showed “little if any remorse for his flagrant and egregious actions” in the pay dispute, the court wrote.
The court rejected a third allegation that Dehen failed to follow statutory requirements and showed bias against noncitizen, at-risk juveniles when he denied their guardianship petitions.
The statute at issue says the purpose of the guardian is to help at-risk juveniles aged 18 to 21 receive guidance, assistance, financial and emotional support, and referrals to necessary resources.
Another section of the statute references potential eligibility for immigration protection when a guardian is appointed in such cases.
The state supreme court found no misconduct. The statute for the appointment of guardians was relatively new and, when Dehen ruled, there was little or no appellate authority on how to construe it, the court said. And the provision regarding special immigrant protection was arguably in tension with the statute’s stated purposes, according to the court.
Dehen’s reasoning in denying the guardianships was “arguably consistent with a good-faith effort to apply the law as he understood it,” the court said.
Dehen’s suspension from the bench will carry over into a suspension from law practice, the opinion states. Dehen has indicated he plans to retire on Oct. 10.
Dehen has been licensed to practice law since 1988 and has been a judge since his 2010 election. He is represented in the matter by Thomas Weidner of Stillwater, Minnesota. Weidner did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s email or voicemail request for comment.
The ABA Journal was unable to reach Dehen for comment through the court administrator’s office, which took a message and said it would be forwarded to Dehen’s law clerk.
Publications covering the decision include KTSP, the Minnesota Star Tribune, Law360 and the Twin Cities Pioneer Press.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
