Nominations being accepted for SD open government award
Sunshine Week is a nonpartisan collaboration among groups in the journalism, civic, education, government and private sectors that shines a light on the importance of public records and open government. (SunshineWeek.org)
The South Dakota NewsMedia Association is accepting nominees for the 2025 SDNA Eagle Award.
This award is given to an individual, group or organization that has demonstrated outstanding efforts to protect and promote openness and transparency in government.
March 16-22, 2025, is Sunshine Week, a nonpartisan collaboration among groups in the journalism, civic, education, government and private sectors that shines a light on the importance of public records and open government.
The SDNA First Amendment Committee welcomes nominees for the 2025 Eagle Award to honor the efforts of those who have demonstrated their commitment to the ideals of open government and the public's right to know.
Any individual, group or organization that has demonstrated commitment to the ideals of open government in South Dakota is eligible to be nominated.
Past recipients of the Eagle Award have included legislators, a governor, Supreme Court justices and citizens who have fought at the local level for the public's right to know. SDNA originated the award in 2002.
Nominations for the SDNA Eagle Award should be submitted via email to sdna@sdna.com or mailed to SDNA Eagle Award, South Dakota NewsMedia Association, 1125 32nd Ave., Brookings, SD 57006.
The deadline for nominations is Friday, March 21.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Judge blocks Trump's National Guard deployment in Los Angeles
A federal judge on Thursday ruled President Trump must return control of California's National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) by Friday afternoon, prompting a lightning-fast appeal that began within minutes. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Clinton, temporarily blocked the president from deploying thousands of guardsmen to Los Angeles, where protests over his immigration agenda have sometimes turned violent. But the judge paused his order until Friday at noon PDT, giving the administration a quick window to try to fast-track an emergency appeal. 'At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions,' wrote Breyer, who is also the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. 'He did not. 'His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,' the judge continued. 'He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.' The decision hands a major victory, at least for now, to Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) in their quest to invalidate Trump's deployment as illegal and an unconstitutional intrusion into state authority. The judge left for another day, however, whether Trump needed Newsom's consent. Newsom did not ask the judge to completely block Trump's deployment at this stage, instead urging him to immediately prevent the troops from patrolling the streets of Los Angeles. Breyer refused Newsom's Tuesday request to intervene in mere hours, instead providing the Trump administration a chance to defend themselves at a Thursday hearing before ruling. At the hearing, Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate argued that Trump was not required to seek approval from Newsom in mobilizing the guard, calling the governor 'merely a conduit.' The president does not have to call up a governor and 'invite them to Camp David' for a negotiation summit to call in the National Guard in their state, he said. 'There is one commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and when the president makes a decision, the states are subservient to the president's decision,' Shumate said. Newsom and Bonta sued Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Department of Defense over the deployment of several thousand National Guard troops to Los Angeles, where protests over the administration's aggressive immigration enforcement efforts have sometimes turned violent. During a congressional hearing Thursday, Hegseth refused to commit to following court orders regarding the deployment after a Democratic congressman pressed him on the matter. He said that the U.S. should not have 'local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country.' The California officials say the deployment was unlawful. Nicholas Green, a lawyer for the state, said that the government's argument meant the president 'by fiat' could federalize the National Guard and deploy it in the streets of any civilian city in the nation. He called it an 'expansive, dangerous conception' of federal executive power. 'I view the constitution a little differently than my colleagues do,' he said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Arkansas Supreme Court authorizes judge suspensions, orders cooperation with disciplinary probes
The Arkansas Supreme Court building in Little Rock. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate) A five-member majority of the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the state judicial discipline commission's request for changes to the rules for judges' and justices' conduct in a Thursday per curiam order. The changes concern accusations of judicial misconduct and disciplinary action against judges and justices who face such allegations. The divide among the Supreme Court justices who supported or dissented from the order mirrored conflicts within the court earlier this year. Chief Justice Karen Baker and Associate Justice Courtney Hudson dissented from the order. Thursday's order approved two alterations to the Judicial Code of Conduct: a new provision allowing the court to issue interim suspensions of judges accused of crimes or misconduct and an amendment that broadens an existing rule requiring cooperation with disciplinary authorities and prohibiting retaliation. According to the rule regarding suspensions, the Supreme Court may suspend a judge with pay 'upon notice of the filing of an indictment, information, or complaint charging the judge with a 'serious crime' under state or federal law.' In_re_Rule_of_Jud._Disc._Enforcement A 'serious crime' includes 'any felony or lesser crime that reflects adversely on the judge's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a judge in other respects' or any crime involving 'interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft or an attempt, conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a 'serious crime,'' the rule states. The rule is based on a model policy from the American Bar Association, and the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission specifically asked the high court for the rule, according to the order. The commission investigates complaints about the conduct of judges and justices and has the authority to recommend disciplinary actions. The rule also allows suspensions for 'other misconduct,' which includes but is not limited to 'witness intimidation, retaliation, or a threat thereof.' Another portion of the code of conduct states that a judge 'shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies' and must not retaliate 'against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation' of judicial misconduct. The amended provision approved by the Supreme Court majority specifies that intimidation is also prohibited and that the rule applies to 'a judge, justice, special judge/justice, judicial candidate, or judge-elect.' Earlier this year, the high court ordered the release of a report alleging that Baker harassed judiciary employees on Dec. 4-5, 2024, after she was elected but before she was sworn in as the state's first elected female chief justice. 'Justice Baker intimidated staff, appears to have targeted female employees of color, indicated an intention to retaliate based on her perception of how employees voted, and indicated an intention to retaliate based on her perception of whether employees were cooperating with Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission's investigation into her colleague's conduct,' the report from the Administrative Office of the Courts human resources department states. UPDATED: Arkansas Supreme Court chief justice harassed court staff, per human resources report Baker co-signed Hudson's dissenting opinion on Thursday's per curiam order. Hudson wrote that the rule regarding suspensions 'presents legitimate due-process concerns.' 'It contains absolutely no requirement that notice be provided to the impacted judge either before or after the interim suspension or that the judge be allowed an opportunity to respond to an allegation of misconduct,' Hudson wrote. She also raised the possibility that the rule violates the state and federal constitutions' ban on adopting rules or laws that govern conduct prior to their adoption. Associate Justice Rhonda Wood responded to Hudson's dissent with a concurring opinion. Wood argued that the new rule creates more due process for judges, not less, because it 'provides guidelines previously nonexistent.' The rule also 'sets out parameters for the current authority' that the Supreme Court has always had to suspend judges accused of misconduct and is not a completely new policy applied retroactively, Wood wrote. Judicial conduct has been at the forefront of the Arkansas Supreme Court since September 2024. Five of Hudson's colleagues referred her to the JDDC for 'flagrant breaches of confidentiality' after she filed then-Chief Justice John Dan Kemp's emails into evidence in her attempt to block the release of emails between her, Baker and others in response to a FOIA request from Arkansas Business. Arkansas Supreme Court refers one of its own for disciplinary investigation Baker dissented to Hudson's referral to JDDC, and she made transparency a focus of her successful runoff campaign against Wood to succeed Kemp, who did not run for reelection last year. Within days of taking the oath of office Jan. 1, Baker butted heads with the rest of the court over the scope of her authority as chief justice. Hudson was the only one of Baker's colleagues who did not block the chief justice's attempts to fire 10 judiciary employees and appoint three new judges to the judicial discipline body. The other five justices claimed Baker did not have the authority to make such unilateral decisions without consulting the rest of the court. Issues of judicial misconduct have not been limited to the Supreme Court this year. Former Monroe County district judge and deputy prosecutor T. David Carruth was sentenced in May to two years in federal prison for making false statements to the FBI. He had been admonished by the JDDC in 2018 for improper conduct in violation of the Judicial Code of Ethics. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
‘Leave Immediately': Trump administration orders self-deportation for Biden-era parolees
The Trump administration is telling Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans that legally came to the United States under a Biden-era program that they must immediately leave the United States and encouraging them to self-deport. The Department of Homeland Security said on Thursday that it is notifying parole recipients of a program known as CNHV that if they 'have not obtained lawful status to remain in the U.S., they must leave immediately.' The agency said it is also revoking their work permits. 'Ending the CHNV parole programs, as well as the paroles of those who exploited it, will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety, and a return to America First,' said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. The development comes 13 days after the Supreme Court lifted a lower court's order blocking the Trump administration from ending the program. During the Biden presidency, over half-a-million people from the four countries legally came to live and work in the U.S. READ MORE: Trump targets Biden-era migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti for deportation As many as half of the 531,000 migrants who entered the United States through the program have applied for other immigration benefits to adjust their status and may have a path to remain in the country, according to the Justice Action Center, a nonprofit that advocates for immigrants and has defended the parole program in court. This includes individuals who have already applied for asylum or for a green card under the decades-old Cuban Adjustment Act. However, as many as hundreds of thousands of others now face a difficult decision: whether to remain in the U.S. — risking detention and deportation — or to voluntarily return to countries plagued by violence, hunger, and human rights abuses. The Supreme Court ruling did not offer guidance for the Trump administration on how to carry out the ending of the program. Brandon Galli-Graves, Staff Attorney at Justice Action Center, said that the organization does not know how DHS will conduct immigration enforcement toward beneficiaries of the program. He noted that the agency previously said it intended to put as many beneficiaries as possible in expedited proceedings, a type of administrative deportation process that does not require a judge. When the Trump administration ended the program, roughly 117,000 Venezuelans, 211,000 Haitians, 110,000 Cubans, and about 93,000 Nicaraguans had entered the country through the program. It remains unclear whether all parole beneficiaries will receive the deportation notice or only those who have not applied for any other legal status. Galli-Graves said beneficiaries should check with their lawyers to understand how the Supreme Court case affects them. In its statement, the Trump administration referred to parole recipients as 'illegal aliens., ' despite the fact that, to qualify for the program, individuals were required to have a financial sponsor in the U.S., pass health and background checks, and enter the country through an airport. Once admitted, they became eligible to apply for work permits valid for the program's two-year duration. Many CHNV parolees were employed in critical sectors of the U.S. economy, from construction to elder care, helping to address labor shortages in both rural and urban areas, according to several immigration advocates. With parole protections now terminated, many of these individuals face job loss, housing instability, and disruptions to their education. The mass termination also jeopardizes family reunification as thousands of U.S.-based sponsors, including faith communities and cherished family members, now find themselves unable to protect the loved ones they committed to support. 'Rescinding legal protections from hundreds of thousands of people who entered this country through proper channels is a deeply destabilizing decision, not just for the families affected, but also for their loved ones and the communities that have welcomed them,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, President and CEO of Global Refuge. 'These are people who play by the rules.. Tearing up that social contract overnight does nothing to advance our national security or humanitarian leadership.'
