The Quadriga
Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

By State Senator Scott M. Jensen, District 47, Minnesota Senate As a physician, I believe a moral imperative exists to help patients avoid potentially lethal consequences if their supply of insulin—or any other similar life-giving medication—is interrupted. Every Minnesotan has a stake in addressing the growing challenge of unaffordable critical medicines. This is the best time to begin the necessary work to resolve this issue—political bickering and posturing must end, and gridlock must be quashed or more sorrow and death will result.  

Insulin Access, Is This a Market Failure That Policy Can Correct? A GOP Perspective

Introduction When it comes to policing the Minnesota legislative process, the current Minnesota Supreme Court has gotten it wrong. Separately in Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v Dayton,[i] and in Otto v. Wright County,[ii] the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that there was no state constitutional violation either when the governor line-item vetoed the state legislature’s funding …

Political Mischief and the Single-Subject Rule: Why the Minnesota Supreme Court got it Wrong and Why it Matters

Introduction Before Uber and Lyft, the framework for approaching the run-of-the-mill motor vehicle accident (“MVA”) case remained unchanged for decades. Traditionally, MVA cases center around three primary issues: fault, damages, and who pays for the damages. The fault and damages components are allocated amongst the individuals involved in the accident. In the vast majority of …

An Overview: The Impact of Rideshare Insurance on the Role of Liability Insurance in Motor Vehicle Accident Cases

Introduction On March 15, 2019, the Appellate Practice Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association held the annual Appellate Practice Institute in conjunction with Minnesota CLE. A panel consisting of Justice Natalie Hudson, Judge Matthew Johnson, and Judge Peter Reyes discussed tips for appellate practitioners. This article outlines tips that were shared by the appellate …

Tips from Appellate Jurists

Introduction During the 2017 and 2018 legislative sessions, the Minnesota Legislature debated H.F. 390, a bill that would increase criminal penalties for protesters that block highways, public transit, or airport access.[i] Introduced to deter the disruptive tactics of Black Lives Matter protests in Minnesota, the bill was highly controversial, highlighted by a partisan political divide …

Legislative Efforts to Silence Dissent: The Rise and Fall of Minnesota’s Anti-Protest Bill

The Minnesota Supreme Court, in Phone Recovery Services v. Qwest Corporation, 919 N.W.2d 315 (2018), held that fees and surcharges imposed by statute for 911 services,[i] the Telecommunications Access Minnesota (TAM) program,[ii] and the Telephone Assistance Plan (TAP) program,[iii] were “portions of Minnesota Statutes relating to taxation,” within the meaning of the “tax bar” of …

Some History Behind the “Tax vs. Fee” Issue in Phone Recovery Services

Over a year ago, the Minneapolis Star Tribune published a high-profile series of articles highlighting pervasive abuse, neglect, assault, theft, and other reprehensible actions taking place in Minnesota senior care facilities.[i] Prior to this, I had heard accounts from constituents of this taking place, with few options for recourse.

In 2019, The Minnesota Legislature Must Strengthen Protections for Seniors and Vulnerable Adults

Opioid use disorder is a costly epidemic. Policymakers are searching for solutions to this public health crisis, but who should pay to combat this problem? That simple question creates a lot of tension when crafting public policy.

Who Pays to Fight Opioid Use Disorders?