Description: Challenge by environmental and indigenous groups and activists to South Dakota's "Riot Boosting Act."
-
Dakota Rural Action v. Noem
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 10/29/2019 Order Download Action dismissed with prejudice pursuant to stipulated settlement agreement. 10/24/2019 Motion Download Joint motion filed for consideration of stipulated agreement and dismissal. South Dakota Agreed Not to Enforce Provisions of Riot Boosting Act. A month after a federal court in South Dakota blocked the State from enforcing provisions of a riot boosting statute, the State and plaintiffs reached a settlement pursuant to which the State agreed not to enforce the provisions that the court temporarily enjoined. The plaintiffs had alleged that the statute had been passed in anticipation of possible protests by environmental activists along the route of the Keystone XL pipeline. 09/18/2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order Download Defendant Sheriff Thom's motion to dismiss for lack of standing granted with leave for plaintiffs to file a motion to amend. In a separate order, the court dismissed a county sheriff from the action because the court found the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring claims against him. 09/18/2019 Order Download Motion for preliminary injunction granted and defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings or for certification to the South Dakota Supreme Court denied. South Dakota Federal Court Granted Preliminary Injunction Against Enforcement of Laws Targeting Pipeline Protesters. The federal district court for the District of South Dakota temporarily enjoined enforcement of provisions of a riot boosting statute enacted in South Dakota in 2019 in response to anticipated protests of the Keystone XL pipeline. The court also temporarily enjoined two felony riot statutes because they went “far beyond” the State’s “appropriate interest” in criminalizing participation in a riot with acts of force or violence. The court said the laws’ provision for criminal or tort liability for advising, encouraging, or soliciting persons participating in a riot to acts of force or violence was overbroad and vague. 03/28/2019 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Activists Challenged Constitutionality of South Dakota “Riot Boosting” Law. Environmental and indigenous groups and activists filed a lawsuit in federal court in South Dakota challenging the “Riot Boosting Act,” a law signed by South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem in March 2019 that makes persons who participate in, direct, advise, or encourage “riots” or solicit another participant in a riot to acts of force or violence liable to the State or other political subdivision for damages. The plaintiffs alleged that the law was passed in response to pipeline protests near Standing Rock, North Dakota, and to legislators’ concerns regarding possible protests of the Keystone XL pipeline. The complaint asserted that the Riot Boosting Act, along with certain criminal statutes, unlawfully chilled “peaceful protests” in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.