Minnesota Appellate Court Watch
LightNews LightNews
banner
minnappct.watch
Minnesota Appellate Court Watch
@minnappct.watch
170 followers 12 following 21 posts
A newsletter dedicated to tracking appellate cases in Minnesota. Trends, analysis, and the sort of fun only appellate minutia can offer. Run by @danielsuitor.com. Newsletters/posts are for informational purposes, not legal advice.

blog.minnappct.watch
Posts Replies Media Videos
minnappct.watch
I really respect any judicial or quasi-judicial body that takes one look at a tough case and issues an opinion saying "actually we don't have the authority to deal with this, good luck!"
Sentence of the Week The Board directed the parties to submit memoranda on the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Both parties agreed that the Board was statutorily required to hear the appeal. In February 2025, the Board concluded that it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. - Blissenbach, page 3. I too would cut my own leg off to avoid having to decide discrimination cases stemming from return-to-office orders issued in May 2020, but the statute seemed pretty clear on this one. And both parties agreed that there was jurisdiction! The Occupational Safety and Health Review Board’s reasoning for refusing to hear the case seems to be “Well yes, the statute says we have to hear all appeals from an ALJ, but it doesn’t say we have to hear discrimination appeals.” Blissenbach, page 6. I honestly respect that hustle.
December 8, 2025 at 8:55 PM
minnappct.watch
Don't come for the legal analysis; do it for my poetry.
Two Delaware LLCs, both alike in ignominy, In fair Itasca, where we lay our scene From lease dispute defer to arbitral authority
December 8, 2025 at 8:41 PM
minnappct.watch
The core dispute is that the Department of Corrections refused to approve Wright County to become the parole administrator bc it refused to meet its statutory duty to re-employ all the DOC employees "with all of the benefits enjoyed" at DOC. Here, the County wouldn't provide accrued leave.
This in itself establishes the need for a writ of prohibition directed to the Wright County district court. For context about the reason this is occurring, Wright County shared its desire to participate in the CCA subsidy program earlier this year. In conjunction with the DOC, it prepared for a transition in Fall 2025. But the DOC determined transition could not move forward when, late in the process, Wright County informed the DOC that it would not provide DOC employees that would be displaced by the transition their accrued leave benefits. The CCA requires that, to the extent possible, a county employ all displaced DOC employees “with all of the benefits enjoyed by the officer or employee while in the service of the state.” Minn. Stat. § 401.04, subd. 2(a-b) (emphasis added). As a result, the Commissioner did not approve Wright County to participate in the CCA subsidy program. On September 12, 2025, offer letters from Wright County went to 11 affected DOC employees with the transition scheduled for October 13, 2025. (Swanson Decl. ¶ 15, Ex. A.) In the letters, the affected employees were not offered any of their accrued sick or vacation leave hours. Instead, they would lose these earned benefits and start over with 0 hours of leave accrued. (Swanson Decl. ¶ 16.) This was not acceptable to the DOC and as a result, the transition planned for October 13, 2025, was delayed. Wright County set a new transition date for November 10, 2025. (Swanson Decl. ¶ 17.) The DOC needed to give displaced employees 21 days’ notice of their pending layoff as they transitioned to new employment with Wright County. It cancelled the original layoff notices and kept employing the 11 agents that had planned to transition to Wright County. (Swanson Decl. ¶ 18.) Wright County and DOC officials exchanged communications trying to work out their disagreement over the terms but could not reach an agreement. (Hall Decl., Exs. A-F.) One of Wright County’s arguments was that it was complying with the CCA because it was “not possible” to provide DOC employees with their accrued vacation and sick benefits because the State offers those benefits separately, while Wright County has provided a single pool of paid time off since 2017. As the DOC explained, however, Wright County could comply with the statute if it transitioned state employees’ accrued paid time off in the same manner that Wright County did with its own employees in 2017, which was certainly possible since the county had done it before. (Hall Decl., Ex. C.) By letter on October 2, 2025, the Commissioner thus informed Wright County that he would not approve its transition to a CCA jurisdiction. (Hall Decl., Ex. A.) The JPA expired on October 13, 2025, without an amendment or new agreement being put in place. (Swanson Decl. ¶ 19.)
December 5, 2025 at 6:15 PM
minnappct.watch
I am not an expert on writs practice, but my first question is whether the COA has jursdiction to hear this petition, or whether it needed to be directed to the district court first (maybe the chief judge?). I'll admit it seems futile, but the DOC's brief doesn't hit that issue squarely on the head
RELIEF REQUESTED Petitioner respectfully requests this Court issue a writ of prohibition directing the Wright County district court to stop ordering probation services for adult felons to Wright County Probation until the Commissioner affirms that he has approved Wright County’s transition to a CCA model or has otherwise authorized assignment of these services to Wright County. WHY THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE “A writ of prohibition will issue when the court exercises, or is about to exercise, judicial power, the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law, and the result will be an injury for which there is no other adequate remedy.” Klapmeier v. Cirrus Indus., Inc., 900 N.W.2d 386, 392 (Minn. 2017). Writs of prohibition are an important tool “to oversee the actions of lower courts in the rare instances in which a court . . . exercises judicial power that is unauthorized by law.” Id. A writ of prohibition can be issued if “(1) an inferior court or tribunal [is] about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power [is] unauthorized by law; and (3) the exercise of such power [will] result in injury for which there is no adequate remedy.” In re Leslie, 889 N.W.2d 13, 14 (Minn. 2017) (alterations in original) (citation omitted).
December 5, 2025 at 6:10 PM
minnappct.watch
An absolutely fascinating filing with the Court of Appeals. The Minnesota Department of Corrections is seeking a writ of prohibition against the Wright County District Court itself, alleging that the court is unlawfully allowing Wright County to administer probation to felony probationers.
No. A25-____ December 4, 2025 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS _____________________________________________ Minnesota Department of Corrections, Petitioner. In Re Wright County District Court Felony Supervision Orders. _____________________________________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION DIRECTED TO THE WRIGHT COUNTY DISTRICT COURT AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION WRIT REQUESTED ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 10, 2025 INTRODUCTION By statute, the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) has “exclusive responsibility for providing probation services for adult felons,” unless a county (or Tribal Nation) takes part in the Community Corrections Act (CCA) subsidy program. Minn. Stat. § 244.20(a)(1) (emphasis added). If a county wishes to take part in the CCA subsidy program, the Commissioner’s approval is required. Minn. Stat. § 401.06, subd. 1. Wright County does not have the Commissioner’s approval and is therefore ineligible to participate in the CCA subsidy program. See id. Despite the clear statutory directive for exclusive DOC responsibility for probation services for adult felons, the Wright County district court has ordered joint probation services to both Wright County Probation and the DOC. Wright County employees are intercepting the assigned clients in the courtroom, opening files on them, filing documents into their cases, and appear to be directing the clients that they do not need to meet with DOC employees. There are potentially dozens of affected adult felon clients right now, with the numbers increasing each day there is a felony court calendar in Wright County.
December 5, 2025 at 6:08 PM
minnappct.watch
At the suggestion of a friend, I added some statistics about case timing. I may not publish these on a weekly basis, at least for the COA, given how bouncy they might be. But worth tracking in the long term.
Decisions average 275 days from filing, 71 since argument Civil: 252 / 69 Criminal: 302 / 74 Precedential: 252 / 83 Nonprecedential 273 / 71 Order opinions: 344 / 59
December 2, 2025 at 2:17 AM
minnappct.watch
I'm trying not to bite off too much with these blogs, but I wanted to do a few recurring bits and I think the Sentence of the Week is going to be a winner
Sentence of the Week "Arnold explained further that “this is real live monetary money that is . . . federally regulated” and that “anyone who does not process those instruments . . . will be prosecuted by the SEC” or another governmental entity." - State v. Arnold, page 3. My "this is real live monetary money that is federally regulated" T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt.
December 1, 2025 at 11:25 PM
minnappct.watch
It's the first-ever edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch! This week we have 22 Court of Appeals decision, covering everything from the forfeiture of convenience store vape pens to passing bad checks to the court that just convicted you.

blog.minnappct.watch/minnesota-co...
December 1, 2025 at 11:07 PM
minnappct.watch
It does appear that the defendent in this case is a sovereign citizen with some pretty extreme beliefs, even for that philosophy's already strained set of legal theories, that include founding his own "bank." Good work getting the entity its own EIN, though. That's a nice touch.
December 1, 2025 at 6:26 PM
minnappct.watch
Citation: State v. Arnold, No. A25-0104 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2025).

Opinion: drive.google.com/file/d/17Pg4...
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A25-0104 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eugene Nathaniel Arnold, III, Appellant. Filed December 1, 2025 Affirmed Johnson, Judge Sherburne County District Court File No. 71-CR-21-525 Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Dawn Nyhus, Sherburne County Attorney, George R. Kennedy, Assistant County Attorney, Elk River, Minnesota (for respondent) Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Evan Ottaviani, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant) Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Frisch, Chief Judge; and Johnson, Judge. JOHNSON, Judge NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
December 1, 2025 at 6:21 PM
minnappct.watch
Rule #1 of check forgery: don't do it

Rule #2 of check forgery: don't forge a check payable to the court which just convicted you of possession of burglary tools
FACTS On December 28, 2020, the Sherburne County District Court entered judgment in a criminal case against Arnold. The district court imposed a prison sentence but stayed execution of the sentence. The district court also ordered restitution in the amount of $1,564.78, a surcharge of $75.00, and a law library fee of $10.00, for a total of $1,649.78. Two days later, Arnold mailed an envelope to the office of the Sherburne County Court Administrator. Inside the envelope was a document entitled “CASHIER’S CHECK” in the amount of $26,649.78. The purported cashier’s check, which was introduced into evidence as exhibit 2, is appended to this opinion. The envelope included other documents, including a “letter of credit,” which explains Arnold’s means of satisfying the judgment debt, and a document warning that it would be fraudulent for the recipient to not process the cashier’s check within three days. A few weeks later, on February 12, 2021, Arnold mailed a second envelope to the court administrator’s office. Inside the second envelope was another document entitled “CASHIER’S CHECK,” this time in the amount of $1,564.78, which is the amount of restitution ordered in the prior criminal case. The second purported cashier’s check, which was introduced into evidence as exhibit 3, also is appended to this opinion. The second Possession of Burglary or Theft ToolsPossession of Burglary or Theft Tools Statute: 609.59 Additional Statute: Possession of Burglary or Theft Tools (609.59) Disposition: Convicted Disposition Date: 12/28/2020December 28 2020 Level of Sentence: Convicted of a FelonyConvicted of a Felony Level of Charge: Felony Offense Date: February 9 202002/09/2020 Community Of Offense: Elk River Law Enforcement Agency: Elk River Police Department Prosecuting Agency: Sherburne County Attorney On February 9, 2020, at approximately 6:13 a.m., officers with the Elk River Police Department responded to Great River Energy, a public utility located at 17845 Highway 10 in Elk River, Sherburne County, Minnesota. Security for Great River Energy reported that a white Chevrolet SUV had been on the property without permission. A man wearing a brown coat with a hood was still on the property by Warehouse 2, also without permission. Sergeant Zabee and Officer Erickson located footprints near Warehouse 2. Officer Studniski waited near Highway 10, and saw a man running south towards the highway. That man crossed the highway and went into the ditch by the Mississippi River. Officer Erickson responded to that location, and found an adult man lying near the base of a clump of trees under some large branches. That man was wearing a brown Carhartt jacket. He was identified as Eugene Nathaniel Arnold III, D.O.B. 8/18/1977, hereinafter Defendant. Officer Erickson took him into custody, and Officer Studniski transported him to the Sherburne County Jail. Officer Studniski and Sergeant Zabee then returned to Great River Energy to review surveillance video. That video showed Defendant using a ladder to get over a fence, carrying a backpack and a pair of bolt cutters that he used to cut through a different fence onto public utility property. Defendant did not have permission to cut the fence or take anything from the property. Officer Studniski located Defendant’s backpack, which contained a bolt cutter, branch trimmer, winch, chain, duct tape, and a reciprocating saw. Great River Energy security informed Sergeant Zabee that the fence had been repaired recently after someone had cut through it during a different theft in which copper wire had been stolen. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 609.49, intentional failure to appear for duly scheduled court appearances may result in additional criminal charges, and in addition to any arrest warrant that may o…
December 1, 2025 at 6:19 PM
minnappct.watch
The key issue is the Church Autonomy Doctrine. Notably, this is different than the ministerial exemption, where most SCOTUS discrimination case law w/r/t religious employers arises. The COA goes beyond to say that even purely secular employees of a religious institution can be discriminated against.
The Church Autonomy Doctrine “The legal principle that has come to be known as the ‘ecclesiastical abstention doctrine’ or the ‘church autonomy doctrine’ has its roots in a line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding church property and church schisms.”3 Pfeil, 877 N.W.2d at 532. Although none of those decisions directly addresses the factual circumstances of this case, “several helpful rules can be drawn from them.” Id. at 534. Among them is the following rule: although courts can resolve disputes involving religious organizations, they may do so “only if” (1) they are “able to resolve the matter by relying exclusively on neutral principles of law,” (2) they do not “disturb the ruling of a governing ecclesiastical body with respect to issues of doctrine,” and (3) “the adjudication does not interfere with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.” Id. (quotation omitted). The third factor is dispositive here. The Archdiocese did not request dismissal under the ministerial exception in the district court, and the district court did not consider application of that exception when dismissing MoChridhe’s claims. “A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (quotation omitted). However, that is not “an ironclad rule.” Oanes v. Allstate Ins. Co., 617 N.W.2d 401, 403 (Minn. 2000). Because there are no factual disputes that affect the purely legal question of whether First Amendment protections are available in this case only under the ministerial exception, we will briefly address the issue. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.04 (stating that an appellate court may “review any other matter as the interest of justice may require”). The Supreme Court has not expressly addressed this issue. Its seminal cases are Hosannah-Tarbor and Our Lady of Guadalupe. In Hosanna-Tabor, the Supreme Court 24
December 1, 2025 at 5:26 PM
minnappct.watch
If you want to see the Catholic school's policy, the COA has faithfully reproduced it:
Catholic teaching permeates and shapes the ethos of Catholic schools. Informed by Catholic teaching, these Guiding Principles shall inform the creation of policies, handbooks, statements, employee agreements, training for employees, and the approach to accompaniment in the Catholic schools of the Diocese of [insert], thus ensuring that the immeasurable dignity of every child is protected and respected, particularly as it relates to foundational beliefs of the Catholic Church: • God created each person body and soul “in His own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). The dignity of each person and the source of his or her most important identity is found in this creation in the image and likeness of God (CCC §364). • God uses the body to reveal to each person his or her sexual identity as male or female. A person’s embrace of his or her God-given sexual identity is an essential 5 part of living a fulfilled relationship with God, with oneself, and with each other (Laudato Si §155). • The harmonious integration of a person’s sexual identity with his or her sex is an expression of the inner unity and reality of the human person made body and soul in the image and likeness of God (CCC §364-65). The physical, moral, and spiritual differences between men and women are equal and complementary. The flourishing of family life and society depend in part on how this complementarity and equality are lived out (CCC §2333-34). • All students and families deserve interactions with Catholic school communities that are marked by respect, charity, and the truth about human dignity and God’s love (Deus Caritas Est §20). Application of Guiding Principles The aforementioned Guiding Principles are practically applied in Catholic schools. Catholic schools in the Diocese of [insert] will relate to each student in a way that is respectful of and consistent with each student’s God-given sexual identity and biological sex. To this end, below are some examples of how these Guiding Principles apply to organizations that teach children and youth in the name of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of [insert]. 1. All school policies, procedures, resources, employee training, and assistance given to families will be consistent with the Church’s teaching on the dignity of the human person, including human sexuality. Reflective of a commitment to a culture of transparency and understanding, these policies will be made available in writing to members of the school community by way of inclusion in relevant handbooks, agreements, and statements. 2. Student’s name and pronoun usage will correspond to his/her sex (see definitions). 3. Student access to facilities and overnight accommodations will align with his/her sex. 4. Eligibility for single-sex curricular and extracurricular activities will be based on the sex of the child. 5. Expressions of a student’s sexual identity are prohibited when they cause disruption or confusion regarding the Church’s teaching on human sexuality. 6. Students who attend and employees who work at a Catholic school can expect that the school acknowledges that God has created each person as a unity of body and soul, as male or female, and that God-designed sexual expression and behavior must be exclusively oriented to love and life in marriage between one man and one woman. 7. Schools will communicate with parents or guardians about their child’s behavior at school and inform them of any concerns relating to the physical, emotional, social, and spiritual health, safety, or welfare of their child, except when advised otherwise by law enforcement or a social service agency. Definitions 1. Sex refers to a person’s biological identification as male or female based upon physical characteristics present at birth. 2. Sexual identity refers to a person’s identity as male or female that is congruent with one’s sex. 3. Sexual binary refers to the God-given gift of the human family created male or female in the image and likeness of God. 4. Transgender or gender non-conforming is an adjective describing a person who perceives his or her sexual identity to be different from his or her sex and publicly presents himself or herself as the opposite sex or outside the sexual binary. Such 7 public expressions that are intended to communicate a sexual identity different from one’s sex include, but are not limited to, utilizing pronouns of the opposite sex, changing one’s name to reflect the cultural norms of the opposite sex, wearing a uniform designated for the opposite sex, and undergoing surgery to change the appearance of one’s reproductive or sexual anatomy. The principal asked MoChridhe if she could adhere to the Guiding Principles. Holy Angels had not previously shown MoChridhe the Guiding Principles or anything like it. After reviewing the Guiding Principles, MoChridhe said that “she did not believe she could abide by the directives.” MoChridhe’s complaint alleges that the Guiding Principles “instruct schools who teach in the name of the Catholic Church to discriminate against transgender and gender-nonconforming students by, for example, refusing to recognize their pronouns and preferred name if they are inconsistent with a student’s sex assigned at birth, and refusing to allow LGBTQ+ students to express their sexual identity.” According to MoChridhe’s complaint, the principal told MoChridhe “that the Guiding Principles document was the only reason she was not being offered a renewed contract.” It was clear to MoChridhe that “what she was being told was that she would not be allowed to work at [Holy Angles] given that she is transgender.” The principal asked MoChridhe to submit a formal resignation letter by June 7, 2022. MoChridhe did not do so.
December 1, 2025 at 5:21 PM
minnappct.watch
In a precedential opinion, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirms the dismissal of a transgender woman's discrimination case against a Catholic school, ruling the 1st Amendment protects the school because declining to employ trans people "affects the faith and mission of the church itself." #MACW
IN COURT OF APPEALS A25-0559 Reyzl Grace MoChridhe, Appellant, vs. Academy of Holy Angels, Respondent, Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Respondent. Filed December 1, 2025 Affirmed Larkin, Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-24-11601 Jess Braverman, Brittany Stewart (pro hac vice), Gender Justice, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Joni M. Thome, Katherine Rollins, Wanta Thome PLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant) Katie M. Connolly, Sara Gross Methner, Sara L. Lewenstein, Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Thomas B. Wieser, Thomas Wieser Law, West St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Holy Angels) Paul J. Zech, Scott D. Blake, Felhaber Larson, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Lorie S. Gildea, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Archdiocese) Leslie L. Lienemann, Celeste E. Culberth, Culberth & Lienemann, LLP, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Brian T. Rochel, Kitzer Rochel, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and As this case shows—on the face of MoChridhe’s complaint—the decision not to offer her renewed employment at Holy Angels was based only on a religious reason: her stated inability to abide by the directives in the Guiding Principles, as applied in the school setting. Thus, consideration of MoChridhe’s claims would require consideration of the Archdiocese’s religious reason for the employment decision, would interfere with the Archdiocese’s internal decision to require compliance with the Guiding Principles in the school setting—which relates to the church’s mission to educate young people in its faith— and would foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion. The potential 27 inapplicability of the ministerial exception does not change that conclusion, and there is no precedent indicating that it must.5 In conclusion, we recognize the apparent tension between the government’s interest in eliminating discrimination and the religious freedoms protected by the First Amendment. “The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.” Hosanna Tabor, 565 U.S. at 196 (emphasis added); see Geraci, 526 N.W.2d at 399 (“There is a tension between eradicating discrimination and permitting the free exercise of religion; however, in this case, the balance weighs in favor of the First Amendment.”). Based on our application of precedent to the particular facts of this case—as alleged in MoChridhe’s complaint—we hold that because the allegations in MoChridhe’s complaint, construed in her favor, establish that the district court’s adjudication of her claims would violate the religious protections of the First Amendment as a matter of law, the district court properly dismissed MoChridhe’s employment discrimination claims against the Archdiocese for failure to state a claim under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e).
December 1, 2025 at 5:16 PM