DFLers and Republicans in the Minnesota House of Representatives are engaged in a pitched political battle for power and control of the chamber. In the process of their take-no-prisoners approach, both sides are alleging that the other has engaged in unconstitutional and illegal activities. As a result, they are asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to resolve their disputes.
Neither party should be allowed to pursue their case in court and prevail. The Supreme Court should dismiss them as soon as possible.
The reason for this is simple, and it rests upon a couple of legal doctrines any first-year law student would understand.
In the field of law, there are two basic legal concepts every first-year law student learns. The first is referred to as the dirty (alternatively clean) hands doctrine. This is the principle that a party’s own bad behavior precludes it from being able to bring a claim or seek a remedy in court.
A classic, albeit cheesy, example of this is where somebody murders their parents and then claims mercy from the court because they’re an orphan. A better example would be someone who is fired from work and brings a claim that they were not paid. But it turns out they were fired because they were stealing from their employer. The employee generally would be barred from bringing a claim because of the dirty hands doctrine.
A second basic claim is the concept of estoppel. Estoppel means, generally, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, that a party is prevented by his or her own acts from claiming the right to the detriment of other parties because of actions that you have committed. I cannot promise somebody something, encourage them to act in a certain way based on that promise and then sue them for what they did. I have caused the problem I am alleging.
Phrased another way, the clean hands doctrine says no one should be able to profit from their own wrong. The dirty hands doctrine and estoppel are closely related and they basically say that you cannot engage in wrongful behavior — especially behavior that induces the other side to act — and then go to court and seek a remedy because you’ve claimed the other side did something wrong. You have caused the problem you are alleging.
There are multiple legal and constitutional issues surrounding the power standoff at the Legislature in the House, but they are all the result of wrongs committed by both the Democrats and the Republicans.
DFLers should be estopped or precluded from making claims about a lack of quorum in the House because it was their own failure to show up for session that has created the very problem they are alleging that is wrong.
Similarly, Republicans are creating a problem for themselves in their decision to disregard a court opinion and not seat Rep.-elect Brad Tabke. Assuming the Democrats win the special election in Roseville, the House of Representatives would revert back to a 67-67 tie, forcing a power-sharing agreement. But by excluding Tabke and disregarding a judicial opinion that ruled he rightfully won the race, Republicans are creating through their bad behavior a situation which would give them a session majority in the House. If you do not like the opinion, appeal it but do not ignore the decision and use it to force yourself into a majority.
The actions of the DFLers and Republicans are perfect examples of parties seeking to profit from their own wrong bad behavior. If this were a law school class exam, students would be expected to invoke the dirty hands doctrine or estoppel as arguments to bar both the Democrats and Republicans from pursuing their remedies in court. The Minnesota Supreme Court should also consider the use of these doctrines to bar lawsuits and to force both parties to solve the problem they have created for themselves.
David Schultz is a distinguished professor of political science at Hamline University. He teaches in political science, legal studies and environmental studies.
