OPINION
MEYER, Justice.A St. Louis County jury convicted appellant Darryl Andre Harris of first-degree felony murder and attempted first-degree murder. A judicial officer presided, without objection, over most of the pretrial proceedings, as well as all aspects of the trial, including sentencing. On appeal, Harris argues that his convictions must be reversed and a new trial ordered because the judicial officer did not have jurisdiction to hear and try cases of first-degree murder. We reverse the convictions, holding that the assignment of a felony-level trial to a judicial officer pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 487.08, subd. 5 (2002), is unconstitutional. Harris is entitled to a new trial.
On February 22, 2000, Harris, John Horton, and Lucas Johnson went to the apartment of David Voegeli and Licolle Behan for a drug transaction. At the apartment were Voegeli, Behan, David Greenwood, and Efftimia Mylonas. According to witnesses, Harris entered the apartment, pulled out a gun, and declared that it was a robbery. He instructed everyone to drop to the floor and empty their pockets. A struggle over the gun ensued and at least two shots were fired, one paralyzing Voegeli and the other fatally wounding Greenwood. According to Harris, Voegeli, Greenwood, Horton, and Johnson attacked Harris after he walked into the apartment, and Harris shot Voegeli and Greenwood in self-defense.
A grand jury indicted Harris for first-degree felony murder, second-degree intentional murder, second-degree unintentional murder, attempted first-degree felony murder, attempted second-degree intentional murder, and first-degree assault. The case was assigned to a judicial officer rather than a district court judge. Neither party objected to the assignment, and the judicial officer presided over most of the pretrial proceedings, as well as the entire trial. The jury found Harris guilty on all charges. The judicial officer sentenced Harris to life in prison for first-degree murder and to a consecutive term of 180 months for attempted first-degree murder.
On appeal, Harris contends that he is entitled to a new trial before a judge of the district court because the judicial officer lacked jurisdiction to hear and try the case. The state contends that Harris waived any objection to assignment of his case to a judicial officer and, in any event, it was not plain error for the chief judge of the district to assign the judicial officer to hear and try the case. Because the issue of a judicial officer’s authority to preside over a felony trial involves purely legal questions, we review the issue de novo. See State v. Wolf, 605 N.W.2d 381, 386 (Minn.2000). Before considering a judicial officer’s proper jurisdiction, we review the background of the judicial officer position within Minnesota’s court system.
A. A History of Judicial Officers in Minnesota
In 1971, the legislature abolished most municipal courts in favor of county courts and authorized the appointment of judicial officers by county courts. Act of June 7, 1971, ch. 951, 1971 Minn. Laws 1985,1985-*9142011 (codified at Minn.Stat. §§ 487.01-487.41 (1971)); see generally Marlene Johnson & John M. Stuart, Minnesota’s Judicial Officers: A Short History of an Endangered Species, Bench & Bar of Minn., Dec. 1979, at 28, 27-28 (explaining the work of judicial officers and how the position was created). Minnesota Statutes § 487.08 (1971) provided:
When the judicial business of a county-court requires, the county court may appoint one or more part time judicial officers who shall be learned in the law and whose salary shall be fixed by the county court, with the approval of the county board or boards of the counties of the district, and paid by the county. They shall serve at the pleasure of the county court. They shall hear and try such matters as shall be assigned to them by the county court judge.
The judicial officer’s work was seen as a continuation of the services provided by the municipal court, and the positions were created both to handle excess work load and provide short-term employment for probate and municipal judges who did not become county court judges. Johnson & Stuart, supra, at 27-28.
Under the 1971 legislation, a county court judge’s jurisdiction was limited to probate matters, juvenile matters, family court proceedings, civil cases where the amount in controversy did not exceed $5,000, quiet title and mortgage foreclosures, forcible entry and unlawful detainer actions, ordinance violations, minor criminal offenses, and preliminary hearings for any criminal matter occurring in the county.1 Act of June 7,1971, ch. 951, §§ 14-19, 1971 Minn. Laws 1985, 1992-94. Because county courts did not have jurisdiction over felony matters, a judicial officer appointed under Minn.Stat. § 487.08 could not preside over a felony matter. See id.
In 1977, the legislature abolished the office of judicial officer. Act of June 2, 1977, ch. 432, § 25, 1977 Minn. Laws 1147, 1161. Before the effective date of abolition, however, the 1978 legislature amended the statute to grandfather in existing personnel, authorizing persons holding the office of judicial officer on January 1, 1978, in certain counties to “continue to serve at the pleasure of the chief judge of the district under the terms and conditions of their appointments.” Act of April 5, 1978, ch. 750, § 3, 1978 Minn. Laws 907, 908-09 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 487.08 (1978)). The 1978 act also brought judicial officers under the controlling authority of the chief judge of the judicial district by providing that their salaries would be fixed by the chief judge, that they would be subject to the administrative authority and assignment powers of the chief judge, and that they would hear and try such matters as the chief judge may assign. Minn.Stat. § 487.08, subd. 5 (1978).2 The 1978 act would have gradually phased out judicial *915officers through retirement, resignation, or termination of the assignment, but did allow for the appointment of temporary judicial officers for terms to expire no later than July 31, 1981. Act of April 5, 1978, ch. 750, § 6, 1978 Minn. Laws 907, 910.
As part of the same act, the legislature mandated that the supreme court, or an agency designated by it, review and study, among other things, whether the offices of judicial officer and referee should be retained or abolished; and if it was recommended that these offices should be retained, whether the powers and duties should be modified. Id., § 8, 1978 Minn. Laws at 910. On October 1, 1980, the Minnesota Supreme Court Judicial Planning Committee submitted its report to the legislature. Minn. Supreme Court Judicial Planning Comm., Report on the Use of Para-Judicial Personnel in the Minnesota Courts (Oct. 1, 1980) (hereinafter “Committee Report”).
The committee recommended that “[n]o vacancy in the office of judicial officer should be filled, nor new office created.” Id. at 13. The committee noted that following the transfer of assignment powers to the chief judge of the district court in 1978, district court cases were being assigned to judicial officers. Id. at 12-13. The committee stated:
Statutory authority for judicial officers to hear, try, and issue final orders on any matter assigned, together with current assignment practices in the various districts, leads to the conclusion that judicial officers are utilized as functional equivalents of judges.
Id. at 12. In recommending the elimination of the judicial officer position, the committee was concerned that “judicial officers are not judges yet they are engaged in judging.” Id. The committee further explained:
The Minnesota Constitution and fundamental organization of the judiciary contemplate courts staffed with duly elected judges, accountable to the public. * * * Simply stated, the argument is that “people have a right to a judge.”
Id. The committee acknowledged that the judicial officer position provided additional judicial personnel to meet rising caseloads, but advised that “[cjaseload requirements should be accommodated not by counties appointing judicial officers, but by the Legislature creating judgeships.” Id. at 13. The committee also noted that elimination of the judicial officer position would be consistent with recent legislation intended to consolidate, unify, and standardize the court system throughout the state. Id. Accordingly, the committee recommended that the office of judicial officer be abolished when all “grandfathered” positions were vacated or terminated. Id.
Notwithstanding the committee’s recommendations, the legislature did not entirely eliminate the position of judicial officer nor did it modify the duties and powers of judicial officers. Following the Committee Report, the 1981 legislature updated the grandfather provision, providing that persons holding the office of judicial officer on January 1, 1981, in certain counties “may continue to serve at the pleasure of the chief judge of the district under the terms and conditions of their appointment.” Act of June 6, 1981, 1st Spec. Sess., ch. 4 art. 3, § 5, 1981 Minn. Laws 2479, 2526 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 487.08, subd. 2 (1982)). Although the same act prescribed the duties and powers of referees, see id. at § 4 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 484.70, subd. 7 (1982)), the legislature did not further address the duties and powers of judicial officers.
*916The 1982 legislature preserved judicial officer positions in St. Louis, Steele, and Carlton counties, granting authority to the chief judge in those districts to fill any vacancies arising in the office of judicial officer so long as the position existed on January 1, 1981. Act of March 28, 1982, ch. 608, § 2, 1982 Minn. Laws 1457, 1457 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 487.08, subd. 2 (1982)). As of May 1992, the only judicial officer position that remained filled in Minnesota was in St. Louis County. Minn. R.Crim. P. 4 cmt.
B. The Judicial Officer’s Jurisdiction
With this background, we come to our first question. Did the legislature intend to grant authority in the chief judge of a judicial district to assign any district court matter to a judicial officer? The purpose of statutory interpretation is to determine the intent of the legislature. Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2002); State v. Larivee, 656 N.W.2d 226, 229 (Minn.2003).
Harris contends that the judicial officer never had jurisdiction to hear and try his case because the legislature never intended to expand the judicial officer’s jurisdiction from minor criminal cases heard by the county courts to felony level cases under the jurisdiction of the district courts. Harris asserts that a judicial officer is limited to hearing and trying county court matters under the plain meaning of MinmStat. § 487.08 (2002), which states that judicial officers — until their positions are abolished — are to “continue to serve at the pleasure of the chief judge of the district under the terms and conditions of their appointment.” Harris argues that permitting judicial officers to serve “under the terms and conditions of their appointment” refers to their original appointment in county court, and they are permitted to serve so long as they are assigned county court cases. See Minn.Stat. § 487.08, subd. 2 (2002). Alternatively, “terms and conditions” could merely refer to administrative matters such as compensation and benefits and not concern a judicial officer’s jurisdiction.
We conclude that the “terms and conditions” language likely refers to administrative matters and does not express legislative intent about jurisdiction. If the legislature had intended to limit the jurisdiction of judicial officers, it could have included language to that effect. Indeed, the section on referees, enacted as part of the same act, also states that persons holding the office of referee in certain districts “may continue to serve at the pleasure of the chief judge of the district under the terms and conditions of their appointment,” yet contains explicit restrictions on the authority of referees to hear certain contested trials. Act of April 5, 1978, ch. 750, § 2, 1978 Minn. Laws 907, 908 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 484.70, subd. 1 (2002)). Because referees were allowed to continue to serve “under the terms and conditions of their appointment” with limitations on their authority being expressly stated, we conclude that the legislature did not intend “terms and conditions” to define a referee’s jurisdictional limits. In re Butler, 552 N.W.2d 226, 281 (Minn.1996) (“where words of a law are not explicit, the intent of the legislature may be ascertained by considering other laws upon the same or similar subjects”). Similarly, we conclude that the legislature did not intend “terms and conditions” to define a judicial officer’s jurisdictional limits.
Furthermore, Minn.Stat. § 487.08, subd. 5 (2002), subjects judicial officers to the authority of the chief judge of the judicial district:
*917All judicial officers are subject to the administrative authority and assignment power of the chief judge of the district as provided in section 484.69, subdivision 3. They shall be learned in the law, and shall hear and try matters as assigned to them by the chief judge.
Under section 484.69, the chief judge of each district has the administrative authority to assign any judge any matter in any court of the judicial district. Minn.Stat. § 484.69, subd. 3 (2002). The state contends that the chief judge’s authority to assign matters to judicial officers is without limitation; if the legislature had intended to limit judicial officers to the kinds of cases they formerly heard in county court, the legislature would have said so explicitly. We agree. By the end of 1980, the legislature was made aware of the general jurisdiction of the district courts and that judicial officers were being utilized as the functional equivalent of judges. See Committee Report, supra, at 12. Had the legislature intended to modify the duties and powers of judicial officers, it would have done so explicitly, as it did for referees. See Act of June 6, 1981, 1st Spec. Sess., ch. 4 art. 3, § 4, 1981 Minn. Laws 2479, 2526; see Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 537 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn.1995) (declining to read into statute restrictions that the legislature did not include). We therefore conclude the legislature intended to permit the chief judge of the district court to assign any district court or county court matter to a judicial officer under MinmStat. §§ 487.08 and 484.69.
C. Constitutional Limits on Jurisdiction
We arrive at our next question. Does granting authority to the chief judge of a district to assign any district court matter to a judicial officer, including a felony jury trial, violate the Minnesota Constitution? In construing articles of the constitution, we have stated:
“The rules governing the courts in construing articles of the State Constitution are well settled. The primary purpose of the courts is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature and people, in adopting the article in question. If the language used is unambiguous, it must be taken as it reads, and in that case there is no room for construction. The entire article is to be construed as a whole, and receive a practical, common sense construction.”
Rice v. Connolly, 488 N.W.2d 241, 247 (Minn.1992) (quoting State ex rel. Chase v. Babcock, 175 Minn. 103, 107, 220 N.W. 408, 410 (1928)). We provide a brief history of the development of the judicial power of the state to provide context for our analysis.
The Minnesota Constitution vests judicial power of the state in the various courts. The original Minnesota Constitution of 1857 provided:
The judicial power of the state shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, courts of probate, justices of the peace, and such other courts, inferior to the supreme court, as the legislature may from time to time establish by a two-thirds vote.
Minn. Const, of 1857, art. VI, § 1. Accordingly, the original language permitted the legislature to establish additional courts so long as they were inferior to the supreme court. In 1956, article VI, section 1, was amended to provide:
The judicial power of the state is hereby vested in a supreme court, a district court, a probate court, and such other *918courts, minor judicial officers and commissioners with jurisdiction inferior to the district court as the legislature may establish.
Minn. Const, of 1857, art. VI, § 1 (1956). This amendment changed the definition of an inferior court. Before the amendment, a court was inferior so long as its jurisdiction was inferior to the supreme court; after the change, a court or judicial officer was inferior if their jurisdiction was inferi- or to the district court. After further amendment, Minn. Const, art. VI, § 1, currently provides:
The judicial power of the state is vested in a supreme court, a court of appeals, if established by the legislature, a district court and such other courts, judicial officers and commissioners with jurisdiction inferior to the district court as the legislature may establish.
The district court has “original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases.” Minn. Const, art. VI, § 3. This felony first-degree murder case falls within the district court’s original jurisdiction. See Minn. Stat. § 484.01, subd. 1 (2002); Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. l(l)(a); State v. Sailor, 257 N.W.2d 349, 351 (Minn.1977). Granting judicial officers the power to hear and try all civil and criminal cases may improperly infringe on the district court’s original jurisdiction. “The legislature’s delegation of an area of the district court’s original jurisdiction calls for this court’s close scrutiny.” Holmberg v. Holmberg, 588 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Minn.1999) (holding that the legislature infringed on the original jurisdiction of the district courts when it empowered administrative law judges to decide child support matters).
Harris maintains that allowing a judicial officer to hear and try a first-degree murder case puts the officer “on the same footing” as a district court judge, in violation of the constitution’s clear mandate that judicial officers have jurisdiction inferior to the district court. We have a common understanding of courts of inferior jurisdiction, and dictionary definitions are instructive and supportive of our understanding. Webster’s defines an inferior court as “a court having limited and specified rather than general jurisdiction.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1158 (1993). Am inferior court is also termed “lower court.” Id. at 1341. Conciliation court is an example of a contemporary court of inferior jurisdiction. See Minn.Stat. § 491A.01 (2002) (addressing establishment, powers, and jurisdiction of conciliation court division of district court). County and municipal courts also are familiar to us as historical examples of such inferior courts. See Minn.Stat. ch. 487 (2002) (addressing county courts); Minn. Stat. ch. 488A (2002) (addressing municipal courts for Hennepin and Ramsey Counties).
If an inferior court is one that has limited and specified rather than general jurisdiction, then it naturally follows that for a judicial officer to remain inferior to the district court under article VI, the judicial officer must have limited and specified jurisdiction. In other words, the judicial officer must be a person having limited rather than general jurisdiction.
The state maintains that a judicial officer may be assigned any district court matter, yet remain “inferior” in jurisdiction to the district court because his jurisdiction is granted on a case-by-case basis. According to the state, “The judicial officer receives whatever jurisdiction he has when the chief judge assigns him a case.” Since the judicial officer has only “dependent” *919jurisdiction — jurisdiction that is dependent on assignment by the chief judge — it is by definition inferior to the district court’s jurisdiction.
To say that the judicial officer’s jurisdiction is inferior because he can only hear cases assigned to him by the chief judge begs the question, however, because Minn. Stat. § 487.08, subd. 5, does not expressly limit the authority of the chief judge to assign matters to the judicial officer, stating only that judicial officers “shall hear and try matters as assigned to them by the chief judge.” District court judges are subject to the same assignment authority by the chief judge of the district. Minn. Stat. § 484.69, subd. 3 (stating that “[t]he chief judge may assign any judge of any court within the judicial district to hear any matter in any court of the judicial district”). As we see it, the question is not whether the judicial officer’s jurisdiction is independent of the district court; the question is whether his jurisdiction is sufficiently limited or specified so that his authority is inferior to the district court. We cannot say that this judicial officer did not entirely assume the role of a district court judge.3
The record reveals that the judicial officer presided over most of the pretrial proceedings, as well as Harris’s entire trial, including jury selection, ruling on eviden-tiary objections, and instructing the jury. He also sentenced Harris to life in prison. His order of judgment was appealable in the same manner as all other final orders of the district court. In sum, he presided over this entire felony trial and was utilized as the functional equivalent of a district court judge.
The power of the judicial officer to hear and try this felony level case was not limited and specific. Rather, the judicial officer exercised jurisdiction over a complex felony trial in which substantive constitutional issues were generally implicated. If judicial officers are allowed to preside over one of the weightiest matters within the district court’s jurisdiction — a first-degree murder trial — then there is no effective limit to the judicial officer’s jurisdiction.
Statutes are presumed constitutional, and we will exercise our power to declare a statute unconstitutional “with extreme caution,” State v. Larsen, 650 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Minn.2002), and only when there is no reasonable alternative construction available. See In re Cold Spring Granite Co., 271 Minn. 460, 467, 136 N.W.2d 782, 787 (1965). Given the history of judicial officers in Minnesota and the unambiguous language of Article VI, we conclude that there is no reasonable alternative available. Therefore, we hold that the legislative grant of authority to the chief judge of a judicial district to assign any district court matter to a judicial officer pursuant to Minn.Stat. *920§ 487.08, subd. 5, violates Article VI, Section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution, because the grant of authority runs afoul of the constitutional mandate that judicial officers be inferior in jurisdiction to the district court.4
D. Harris is Entitled to a New Trial
Next, we must determine whether Harris is entitled to a new trial because the judicial officer lacked authority to preside over his trial. Harris did not raise the issue of the judicial officer’s authority until this appeal. The state urges us to apply plain error analysis and uphold the conviction.5 Harris, on the other hand, maintains that the judgment is void where the court lacks jurisdiction. We decline to adopt either of these analyses.
Ordinarily we limit our review of errors to which the defendant did not object at trial to those constituting plain error affecting substantial rights. See State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740-41 (Minn.1998); Minn. R.Crim. P. 31.02. In a case involving a fundamental question of judicial authority, however, we believe that plain error analysis is inappropriate. Under similar circumstances, the United States Supreme Court recently concluded that plain error analysis did not apply where the question was whether the participation of a non-Article III judge on an appeals panel invalidated the panel’s judg*921ment. Nguyen v. United States, - U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 2130, 2137, 156 L.Ed.2d 64 (2003). The Solicitor General conceded that the panel of the Court of Appeals was improperly constituted, yet urged the court to apply plain error analysis because petitioners had failed to object to the panel’s composition before the cases were submitted for decision. Id. at 2135. The Nguyen court declined to apply plain error analysis because “to ignore the violation of the designation statute in these cases would incorrectly suggest that some action (or inaction) on petitioners’ part could create authority Congress has quite carefully withheld.” Id. at 2137. The court explained that the composition of the panel violated a statutory provision that “embodies weighty congressional policy concerning the proper organization of the federal courts” and that “[e]ven if the parties had expressly stipulated to the participation of a non-Article III judge in the consideration of their appeals, no matter how distinguished and well qualified the judge might be, such a stipulation would not have cured the plain defect in the composition of the panel.” Id.; cf. N. Power Line, Inc. v. Minn. Envtl. Quality Council, 262 N.W.2d 312, 321 (Minn.1977) (stating that parties cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction on a court by consent).
Even more substantial issues are present here, because this case involves the unconstitutional delegation of authority to a judicial officer to preside over a complex felony trial. We cannot discount the constitutional defect in the authority of the judicial officer simply because Harris failed to raise the issue at trial. Accordingly, we conclude that Harris is entitled to a new trial before a district court judge.
Although we look with disfavor upon Harris’s delay in raising the issue of the judicial officer’s lack of authority until after his conviction, we nonetheless believe that it would be unjust not to consider his claim on direct appeal. We are mindful, however, of the potential consequences of our ruling on other felony trials over which a judicial officer has presided. Cf. Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 12 cmt. d (1982) (stating that in the context of collateral attacks on jurisdiction, the interests at stake “are governmental and societal, not those of the parties,” and the question is whether the public interest “is sufficiently strong to permit a possibly superfluous vindication of the rule by a litigant who is undeserving of the accompanying benefit that will redound to him”). In deciding whether to give our ruling retroactive effect, public interest considerations are paramount. For example, we have approved the de facto existence of a municipal court to protect the public and to prevent confusion, uncertainty, and disorder, even though the act establishing the court was held unconstitutional. Marckel Co. v. Zitzow, 218 Minn. 305, 310, 15 N.W.2d 777, 780 (1944). Similarly, in nullifying the administrative child support process created by the legislature, we gave our ruling prospective application, concluding that retroactive application would be very disruptive without advancing the constitutional principle. Holmberg, 588 N.W.2d at 727; see also State v. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65, 72 (Minn.2002) (providing reasons that prospective application of holding is appropriate in a criminal case). Accordingly, because of the reliance by the parties and courts on this judicial officer’s authority in other cases, and the potentially disruptive effect of retroactivity on the administration of justice, we limit application of our holding to this case and to pending and future cases.
Reversed and remanded.
*922Concurring in part and dissenting in part, GILBERT, J. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, ANDERSON, RUSSELL A., and HANSON, JJ.. In 1973, the legislature authorized county courts to appoint full-time judicial officers. Act of May 24, 1973, ch. 679, § 5, 1973 Minn. Laws 1817, 1823.
. The 1978 act provided: "All judicial officers are subject to the administrative authority and assignment power of the chief judge of the district as provided in section 484.69, subdivision 3.” Act of April 5, 1978, ch. 750, § 3, 1978 Minn. Laws 907, 909. The referenced section provided in part:
The chief judge [of each judicial district] may assign any judge of any court within the judicial district to hear any matter in any court of the judicial district. When a judge of a court is assigned to another court he is vested with the powers of a judge of the court to which he is assigned.
Minn.Stat. § 484.69, subd. 3 (1978).
. The dissent is not troubled by a judicial officer assuming the role of a district court judge because, in the words of the dissent, "The judicial officer who tried this case meets the constitutional and statutory requirements [of a judge].” This characterization compels us to note that because Judicial Officer Maher was neither elected nor appointed by the Governor, he met neither of the requirements for a judge set forth in Article VI, §§ 7 and 8 of the Minnesota Constitution. In addition, the constitution sets a district court judge’s term of office at six years and prevents the legislature from reducing a judge's salary during the term of his or her office. Minn. Const, art. VI, § 5. Judicial Officer Maher's term of office and salary is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, Judicial Officer Maher met none of the requirements and received none of the protections of a district judge.
. Our holding is not inconsistent with the assignment of certain non-felony trials and other preliminary matters to a judicial officer. However, we decline to define the outer limits of a judicial officer’s jurisdiction because that is a legislative function. See Minn. Const, art. VI, § 1.
. The dissent would also uphold the conviction by applying the de facto court doctrine, even though neither party has asked us to do so. Because of the unique facts of this case, our de facto court precedent simply is not applicable here. A de facto judge is a "judge operating under color of law but whose authority is procedurally defective." Black’s Law Dictionary 845 (7th ed.1999). Typically, we have applied the de facto judge doctrine when there is a technical defect in the judge’s statutory authority. For example, we have found a judge to have de facto authority where he signed findings in a case just after his successor had taken the oath of office, Carli v. Rhener, 27 Minn. 292, 292-93, 7 N.W. 139, 139 (1880), and we have upheld the de facto authority of a justice of the peace where he filed his bond and oath with the village clerk of the county seat, rather than with the clerk of court, Canty v. Bockenstedt, 170 Minn. 383, 389, 212 N.W. 905, 907 (1927). See also Marckel Co. v. Zitzow, 218 Minn. 305, 310, 15 N.W.2d 777, 780 (1944) (approving the de facto existence of a municipal court where a two-thirds majority of the senate had not voted for the bill establishing the court as required by the constitution at the time).
We have never applied the de facto doctrine in a case where the defect in the underlying statute "is not merely technical but embodies a strong policy concerning the proper administration of judicial business.” See Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 535-36, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 8 L.Ed.2d 671 (1962) (plurality opinion). Here we are confronted “with a question of judicial authority more fundamental than whether 'some effort has been made to conform with the formal conditions on which [a judge’s] particular powers depend.’ ” Nguyen v. United States, - U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 156 L.Ed.2d 64 (2003) (recognizing a "difference between an action which could have been taken, if properly pursued, and one which could never have been taken at all”) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we decline to apply the de facto judge doctrine in these circumstances. Cf. id. at 2135-36 (declining to apply the de facto officer doctrine to uphold the judgment of an improperly constituted panel of the court of appeals).
Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, our decision does not overrule this court’s precedent on de facto courts and judges. We do not apply the doctrine to the assignment of a felony trial to a judicial officer because such an assignment is an action that could never have been properly pursued.