Materials in North Dakota State Board of Higher Ed v. Jaeger

Kate Fort

Documents only available through HTM links, not as PDFs.
3:00pm Thursday, March 15, 2012
20120112 North Dakota State Board
of Higher Education, Petitioner
v.
Al Jaeger, Secretary of State,
in his official capacity,
Fighting Sioux Ballot Measures
aka Committee For Understanding
and Respect, Respondents
and
North Dakota Legislative Assembly Intervenor

Nature of Action: Writ of Prohibition (Civil)
Counsel:
Petitioner: Douglas Alan Bahr , Att. General Office
Respondent: Reed Alan Soderstrom
Intervenor: Patrick W. Durick
Respondent: Sarah Andrews Herman , Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen.
Respondent: Matthew Allen Kipp , Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen.
Intervenor: Zachary Evan Pelham
Respondent: Stephen John Behm
Issues: Respondent’s Statement of the Issues:
Fighting Sioux Ballet Measurers Issues:
1. Whether Article I, 3, regarding the free exercise and enjoyment of religion precludes the State Board of Higher Education (“SBHE”) to obtain a Writ of Injunction without joinder of the N.D. Sioux Tribes.
2. Whether the 1969 sacred Sioux ceremony giving the Fighting Sioux name to the University of North Dakota constitutes a religious function preventing civil interference.
3. Because the Secretary of State has not certified the Referral Petitions nor has there been an actual vote, whether the matter is ripe for Appellate Review.
4. Whether the actions by the majority of the State Legislature along with the State Board of Higher Education can be separated because the two entities acted in concert to promulgate SB 2370.
5. If SBHE and legislative actions can be separated so that constitutional authority can be chosen and decided by this Court, then the issue is whether or not retaining or retiring the Fighting Sioux name is an act to “organize or reorganize” under Article VIII, 6(6)(b) subject to statutory and constitutional limitations.
6. Because of the SBHE’s failure to assert any constitutional rights following the enactment of N.D.C.C. 15-10-46 and the subsequent repeal of said statute pursuant to SB2370, whether the matter has now vested to the power reserved to the people pursuant to Article III, 1 to approve or reject legislative acts for which the SBHE was directly and influentially involved.
Briefs: