South Dakota ballot group loses attorney fees because of new U.S. Supreme Court precedent
Rick Weiland of Dakotans for Health speaks to the press on Feb. 7, 2024, at the South Dakota Capitol in Pierre about an initiated constitutional amendment to re-establish abortion rights in the state constitution. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
A South Dakota ballot question committee and its lawyer are among the first victims of a new U.S. Supreme Court precedent that lessens the likelihood of recovering attorney fees when suing the government for civil rights violations.
The high court's decision in a separate case recently caused Dakotans for Health and its attorney, Jim Leach, to drop their effort to recover attorney fees in a lawsuit against Lawrence County.
Leach and Dakotans for Health won a temporary restraining order last year against the county. The order blocked the county from restricting petition circulators to a designated area away from public sidewalks surrounding the courthouse complex in Deadwood. The circulators were gathering signatures for two measures — one that would have restored abortion rights, and one that sought to eliminate the state sales taxes on groceries. Both measures made it onto statewide ballots but were rejected by voters in November.
Need to get in touch?
Have a news tip?
CONTACT US
The county claimed its policy restricting circulators preserved public safety and protected the right of local citizens to conduct county business without disruption, but a federal judge ruled the policy 'burdened substantially more speech than necessary.'
The judge also ordered the county to pay $19,238.90 in attorney fees and costs, but the county filed an appeal to resist paying the money. Meanwhile, in February, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Lackey v. Stinnie.
The Supreme Court ruled that when civil rights plaintiffs win a preliminary injunction and the government relents without the need for a permanent injunction, the plaintiffs are not 'prevailing parties' and are not eligible for court-awarded attorney fees.
In the Lawrence County case, the county relented and changed its policy, resulting in a voluntary dismissal of the case. Therefore, wrote Leach in a March motion to the appeals court, 'under Lackey v. Stinnie, Dakotans for Health loses this appeal. So there is no need for anyone to spend any more time on this case.' A judge finalized the matter by dismissing the attorney fees and costs last week.
Rick Weiland, chairman of Dakotans for Health, said this week that the Lackey v. Stinnie ruling guts the incentive for lawyers to represent clients suing to protect their civil rights.
'The Supreme Court is attacking the people who go after the government for when it, basically, goes after its own citizens — things like First Amendment violations, which is what we showed the government did,' Weiland said.
Dakotans for Health also settled with Minnehaha County in a similar lawsuit last year, and that county has paid $54,815.15 in attorney fees and costs.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
CO Rep. Jeff Hurd reacts to anti-ICE protests in his district and nationwide
WASHINGTON, D.C. (KREX) – The anti-ICE immigration protests in Los Angeles have inspired pop-up demonstrations of solidarity nationwide, including in Colorado Congressman Jeff Hurd's 3rd district. On the heels of a reportedly peaceful protest last night at Grand Junction's Lilac Park, the republican congressman sat down with WesternSlopeNow from D.C. with a message for protesters in his district and beyond. 'We should not be celebrating lawlessness and destruction of private property,' says Hurd. 'It sows chaos. It hurts families. It hurts communities. Now, by contrast, what we saw in Grand Junction was a peaceful protest. That's an example of the First Amendment properly used.' While the congressman shared support for peaceful protests in his district, he also supports the very thing they are protesting against: President Trump's immigration policies and ICE. 'I stand with the president and with ICE and with law enforcement when it comes to securing our borders and keeping our community safe,' says Hurd. 'When you stop the flow of drugs and crime into our community, that's something that the president campaigned on and something that I campaigned on.' But protesters in his district tell WesternSlopeNow, fighting criminals isn't the whole story. 'There's people getting kidnapped out of their immigration appointments and being told that they shouldn't be here when they're trying to do the right thing,' says protester Stephanie Dedduang. 'They are not just taking criminals. They are trying to arrest around 3,000 people a day in order to make this million-people deportation quota.' Demonstrations against ICE and the administration are scheduled to continue this weekend at the No King's Day protests in Grand Junction. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Leavitt slams ‘stupid question' about Trump's threat to protesters
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt slammed a question from a reporter on Wednesday when asked if President Trump would support having 'peaceful' protesters at the Saturday military parade in Washington, D.C. 'So if there were peaceful protests on Saturday for the military parade, President Trump would allow that,' NOTUS's Jasmine Wright asked on Wednesday during the White House press briefing. 'Of course the president supports peaceful protests. What a stupid question,' Leavitt said in response. Moments prior, Wright had mentioned Trump's warning to potential protesters who were planning to be at the massive Army parade in the nation's capital, saying they would be met with 'very big force.' 'If there's any protester wants to come out, they will be met with very big force. For those people that want to protest, they will be met with very big force. And I haven't even heard about a protest,' Trump said on Tuesday. Wright asked Leavitt if she could 'clarify what kind of protest President Trump does support or find acceptable.' The 'president absolutely supports peaceful protests. He supports the First Amendment. He supports the right of Americans to make their voices heard,' the White House press secretary said. 'He does not support violence of any kind. He does not support assaulting law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do their jobs,' Leavitt added, referring to the ongoing protests in Los Angeles. The protests in the City of Angels began after Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids at several businesses. The demonstrations spread around federal buildings where those detained are believed to be held. In response, Trump deployed National Guard troops and the Marines to help halt the protests, decisions that were opposed by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). 'It's very clear for the president what he supports and what he does not. Unfortunately for Democrats, that line has not been clear and they've allowed this unrest and this violence to continue, and the president has had to step in,' Leavitt said on Wednesday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Expert weighs in on military deployment to Los Angeles protests
LANSING, Mich. (WLNS) – As protests continue against the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, Michigan experts and officials are speaking their minds. Protests started in Los Angeles on Friday, and since then, President Trump has ordered thousands of National Guard members and Marines to deploy in the area. 6 News spoke with a local Homeland Security and National Guard expert about his thoughts on the situation. Retired Brigadier General and Cooley Law Professor Emeritus Michael McDaniel told 6 News he's surprised at how small the protests are compared to the heavy military response. McDaniel says the current LA protests and riots are 'nowhere near' the that occurred after the Rodney King verdict. In that instance, the governor did request President George H.W. Bush to send troops, and Bush invoked the Insurrection Act. This is the most recent time the Insurrection Act has been used by a U.S. president. McDaniel rose through the ranks of the Michigan National Guard for nearly three decades and taught Domestic Operations Law and Constitutional Law at Cooley Law School. He explains that the president does have the ability to use military force domestically through the Insurrection Act—however, he says President Trump has not invoked the act, and neither the California governor nor the state legislature has requested the deployment of troops—which McDaniel says is required before the federal government intervenes. '[President Trump] is, in essence, using military forces for the sole purpose of protecting a federal building,' said McDaniel. 'The military has to be apolitical, neutral. They cannot be engaged in that.' McDaniel says the ability to engage and deter criminal activity is first and foremost with the states, and the federal government should stay out of it. '[The military] cannot do law enforcement,' said McDaniel. 'And if they do, they are acting unlawfully. Maybe the president has immunity under the Supreme Court ruling, but the military leaders do not…and they would be following, I believe, an unlawful order which is contrary to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.' McDaniel says he believes President Trump is acting unconstitutionally in this situation. Furthermore, McDaniel does not believe there's any need for federal troops to be involved. 'It suggests that the president, the current president, sees the military as an instrument that he can use to quash political speech,' said McDaniel. McDaniel also says that although the current issues are in California, the implications are far-reaching and can affect anyone. 'Protests are covered under the First Amendment,' said McDaniel. 'If…the White House decides to use military force to stifle First Amendment debate, political debate, political speech—which goes to the core of our Constitution and our system of government—none of us are safe from an authoritarian state. I'm stating that awfully strongly, but I believe it strongly, that you have to allow types of protests. You cannot have the federal government step in.' Representative Josh Schriver (R-Oxford) was scheduled to hold a press conference Wednesday, urging local governments to cooperate with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and put a stop to 'lawless violence'. 6 News planned to attend that conference, but it was rescheduled to Thursday. 6 News will keep you updated as we learn more. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
