# Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners *Minnesota Supreme Court decision (June 3, 2020) abolishing the state's champerty doctrine.* *Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC* is a decision of the [[Minnesota Supreme Court]], issued on June 3, 2020, that abolished the common-law doctrine of champerty in [[Minnesota]]. The project's timeline records the ruling as unanimous.[^1] The doctrine had stood for 123 years, since 1897, and the project's timeline describes it as having barred third parties from funding lawsuits in the state.[^1] The court reasoned that "modern rules of professional responsibility and civil procedure sufficiently address" the abuses that champerty was historically meant to prevent.[^1] The record assembled here does not contain the parties' filings, the facts of the underlying dispute, or the opinion's full reasoning. It supports the decision's date, its outcome, and the rationale quoted above, and nothing further.[^1] ## What The court abolished champerty as a rule of Minnesota law. The project's timeline entry describes the decision as one that "unanimously abolishes" the doctrine.[^1] The record does not show whether the decision addressed related doctrines or set limits on future litigation-funding agreements. ## When The opinion was issued on June 3, 2020, 123 years after the 1897 date the timeline gives as the doctrine's origin in Minnesota.[^1] ## Why According to the timeline entry, the court held that "modern rules of professional responsibility and civil procedure sufficiently address" historical abuse concerns. This was its stated basis for retiring the doctrine.[^1] ## Context in the project record The project files this decision with its records on later federal action against the State. On January 14, 2026, the [[United States Department of Justice]] announced a suit against Minnesota in release No. 26-21, titled *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*. Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^2] The federal government has used "regime" for governments it opposes. The [[Iraq Liberation Act]] of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-338), for example, states a policy of supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein."[^3] The catalogue of U.S.-government "regime" usages compiled by [[How Minnesota Got Here]] (note 40) finds that Minnesota is the only U.S. state so described. That is the project's catalogue finding, not an independently established fact.[^3] The record does not establish any causal or legal connection between the 2020 decision and the 2026 federal action.[^1][^2] ## In the Minnesota record ### When - June 3, 2020: the Minnesota Supreme Court decides *Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC*.[^1] ### Where - Minnesota Supreme Court; the ruling concerns Minnesota common law.[^1] ### What - The champerty doctrine, which dated to 1897 in Minnesota, is abolished.[^1] ## Notes [^1]: Minnesota Supreme Court, *Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC*, No. A19-1535 (June 3, 2020). Establishes the decision abolishing Minnesota's champerty doctrine and the court's statement that "modern rules of professional responsibility and civil procedure sufficiently address" historical abuse concerns. https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2020/a19-1535.html [^2]: United States Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*, release No. 26-21 (Jan. 14, 2026). Establishes the release's title and Attorney General Pamela Bondi's certification of the case as a matter of general public importance. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-department-justice-files-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-affirmative-action-regime [^3]: United States Congress, *Iraq Liberation Act of 1998*, Pub. L. 105-338 (1998). Establishes the statutory policy of supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein." The project's catalogue finding is cited to How Minnesota Got Here, note 40. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ338/pdf/PLAW-105publ338.pdf