ST. PAUL, Minn. — The Minnesota Supreme Court convened on Thursday to deliberate the extent of its involvement in the ongoing dispute between Democrats and Republicans regarding control of the state House of Representatives.
Since the commencement of the 2025 legislative session on January 14, Democratic lawmakers have intentionally stayed away from the Capitol in an effort to prevent the formation of a quorum necessary for the House to perform its regular operations. Meanwhile, Republicans, holding a fragile one-seat majority, assert that they have already achieved a quorum and are moving ahead with the election of their speaker, introduction of new legislation, and committee hearings. Democrats argue these actions lack legal validity and are merely a facade.
The central issue at hand for the highest court in Minnesota concerns the definition of a quorum within the House. Democrats maintain that the quorum equates to 68 members given that there are 134 available seats, whereas Republicans argue it stands at 67 due to one vacant seat. The Minnesota constitution stipulates that a “majority of each house constitutes a quorum to transact business.” Legal representatives from both sides pointed out various state and federal constitutional provisions, statutory references, judicial precedents, and rules from Congress and other states to underscore the complexity of the matter.
Chief Justice Natalie Hudson expressed her perspective to Solicitor General Liz Kramer, representing Democratic Secretary of State Steve Simon, indicating that the Democrats’ interpretation of the quorum language appears reasonable and straightforward. Nevertheless, she acknowledged that the Republican argument also holds merit.
Nicholas Nelson, the attorney representing House GOP leaders, contended that it is beyond the court’s jurisdiction to evaluate how the Legislature organizes itself or makes leadership decisions, stating that the Democrats should not invoke the judiciary’s power to settle a quorum issue they created.
In response, Hudson noted that while the judiciary is generally reluctant to interfere with another governmental branch, there are situations that necessitate judicial intervention. “We are now faced with a co-equal branch of government that is completely dysfunctional and failing to fulfill its obligations to the people of Minnesota,” she mentioned. “In such cases, shouldn’t the judicial branch step in to provide a resolution?”
The justices decided to take the matter under advisement, with Hudson indicating they would issue a ruling at an unspecified later date.
All justices on the court were appointed by Democratic officials, although the court is known for its commitment to nonpartisan decision-making. Recently, they unanimously sided with Republicans in a separate case.
The standoff arose after November’s elections resulted in a 67-67 deadlock in the House. A power-sharing arrangement crafted by the leading Democratic and Republican figures fell apart when a Ramsey County judge ruled that a Democratic victor from a Roseville-area seat was ineligible due to residency issues. As a result, the session began with a narrow 67-66 Republican majority, which remains pending a special election projected for mid-March to fill that seat, likely restoring the tie given the district’s overwhelming Democratic support.
House Democrats have made it clear they will not return until Republicans agree to a new power-sharing arrangement and grant assurances regarding the seating of Democratic Rep. Brad Tabke from Shakopee, who won a tight election by a mere 14 votes in a district that could swing to GOP in a low-turnout special election. Despite a ruling from a Scott County judge affirming Tabke’s victory, Republicans have hesitated to commit to seating him, as denying him entry would maintain their slim majority until the seat is filled.
This political gridlock is exceptional for Minnesota, though similar tactics have historically been employed in various states, with lawmakers at times retreating to avoid being compelled by state troopers or officials to attend meetings for necessary votes.
Currently, the concerns of House Democrats about being forcibly brought back have diminished, as they contest that the House is not legally constituted, and thus, the Republicans lack the authority to order sergeants-at-arms to fetch missing members. They insist they are remaining productive by engaging with constituents and local leaders in their districts while awaiting a resolution to the standoff.
In contrast, the Minnesota Senate, which is evenly divided at 33-33, continues to operate smoothly due to an established power-sharing agreement, while awaiting a special election scheduled for January 28 to fill a vacancy left by the passing of a senator from a strongly Democratic district.
