Federal judge: campers can stay while civil case against Nelson County Park Board is pending
May 21—NELSON COUNTY — A federal judge granted a motion for preliminary injunction on Monday that will allow four people to continue using camping spaces they were previously ordered to vacate as long as their civil case progresses.
The plaintiffs argue the vacation notice was retaliation for expressing concerns about the park's management.
"They were treated very unfairly," said David Thompson, attorney for the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs are Loralyn Maixner, Wayne Maixner, Ron Maixner and Alane Maixner. In their civil complaint filed in February, the group alleges their lease renewal applications for Stump Lake Park campsites were wrongfully denied in November 2024 after they voiced concerns about park management in a Nelson County Park Board meeting one month earlier. Lessees are subject to a "three strikes" policy for engaging in any conduct that violates park rules, however, none of the plaintiffs received any strikes throughout the years they'd been leasing campsites, according to the order written by U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor.
The plaintiffs assert a claim for retaliation in violation of their First Amendment right to free speech, petition to the government and their Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law, according to court documents.
The civil complaint says that while leaving the Sept. 10, 2024, Park Board meeting where the plaintiffs shared their concerns, a microphone at the board's table captured the statement: "Are these our three problem makers?"
Audio recordings from the next month's board meeting revealed that the board discussed the plaintiffs, joking and laughing about the comments they had made, the judge's order said.
One board member is accused of saying the plaintiffs were always complaining, and their contracts should be terminated, according to the complaint.
"The park manager, Donna Rickford, suggested giving them a strike, but other board members discouraged that option," the judge's order said. "Discussions during the meeting concluded the reason for non-renewal was other behavior, not public comments about park management, but the other behavior was never actually stated in the public meeting. Instead, the plaintiffs were mockingly referred to as 'troublemakers.'"
No reason was given for the plaintiffs' nonrenewal, according to the order.
Thompson said it's unfortunate that his clients have had to go to such lengths for protection of their civil rights, but he expressed relief that, for now, his clients can continue enjoying their summers as they have for many years.
Loralyn Maixner and Wayne Maixner had been leasing the same campsite at the park for 27 years; Ron Maixner and Alane Maixner had been leasing a campsite for 11 years, according to the judge's May 19 order.
"(Traynor) issued injunctive relief in order to preserve the status quo," Thompson said. "The trial is not until January of 2027, so my clients get to enjoy their camping lots for that entire period, based on this decision. It's very significant, and we think it was the right call on the part of Judge Traynor."
Defendants in the case include Jayme Jo Tenneson, Nelson County state's attorney and legal adviser for the board, and all board members (to include all county commissioners): Harold Eidsness, Cody Johnson, Aaron Mork, Doug Flaagan, Michael Haugland, Cameron Swenson, Nathan Parks, Steve Forde and Dennis Fahey. The Park Board itself is also listed as a defendant.
The Herald reached out to the defendants through the defense attorneys listed in the case. Attorney Dan Gaustad responded to say he would not be providing any comment due to the pending litigation. None of the other attorneys answered.
A temporary restraining order was granted in late March that preserved the status quo until a hearing could be held in April to address a possible preliminary injunction. During that time, the defendants were prohibited from taking any action against the plaintiffs regarding the termination of their leases, including removal proceedings, the order said.
Prior to this, the plaintiffs had been expected to remove all their belongings from the premises by March 31.
To be awarded a preliminary injuction, a plaintiff has to establish that they will be irreparably harmed without immediate relief, the balance of equities favors them, there's a likelihood of success on the merits of the case and the injunction serves public interest, according to the order.
Traynor wrote that the plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their retaliation claim, therefore, he does not need to address the other matters. He found that the plaintiffs met their burden, and granted them relief while the case progresses.
A settlement conference is scheduled to be held at 10 a.m. on June 2 in Grand Forks, during which Magistrate Judge Alice Senechal will act as a mediator as the parties attempt to reach a settlement.
The plaintiffs are seeking $450,000, as well as compensatory damages and imposition of punitive damages against each defendant, according to their complaint.
"If there's no settlement, a jury will determine what their damages are," Thompson said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
9 minutes ago
- CNN
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Purdue distances itself from student newspaper, will no longer help with campus distribution
Purdue University announced it will no longer help distribute its student newspaper on campus — one of a handful decisions distancing itself from the independent student publication. Student journalists working at the The Purdue Exponent, First Amendment advocacy organizations and community members say the decision is likely to suppress student journalism and readers' ability to access information — drawing concern over the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment. "This goes back to Purdue trying to sideline the Exponent and control that source of information," former Exponent editor Seth Nelson said. "The more you separate the student newspaper from the campus ecosystem and from the Purdue brand, the easier it is for you to control the message." Purdue's Office of Legal Counsel told the Exponent's publisher and editor in an email sent May 30 that it would no longer help distribute the biweekly paper on campus, citing an expired facilities contract. Previously, the Exponent worked with university employees to deliver papers to racks during early morning hours when many campus buildings are locked. The letter said the Exponent still could deliver the papers to stands "on a non-exclusive, first-come, space-available basis." Purdue also told the 135-year-old publication, which is trademarked as "The Purdue Exponent" through 2029, that it should omit the university's name moving forward. It also pulled Exponent staff's ability to purchase parking passes at a campus garage. The university stood by its decision in a June 5 statement, saying the Exponent is a private business and Purdue doesn't provide such support to other media organizations. In the email, Purdue said the basis for its decision is a contract that expired in 2014. The parties had still honored the terms of the agreement for the last 11 years. The Exponent said in its statement it had attempted to renew the contract for years, while the university email said it has no intention to enter into a new contract. The day after the Exponent's June 5 public statement critiquing the decision, publisher Kyle Charters said the Exponent and Purdue have had "quality conversations" on the matter. The university's decision drew ire from many in the local community who say the publication, which is staffed by about 125 students during the school year, is one of the best outlets for in-depth Purdue coverage. Many local news outlets have experienced reductions in resources and staff needed to inform the area of about 110,000. Charters said this decision impact students who opt to write for the Exponent. Though independent, the student publication is lab for students to learn journalistic skills regardless of their major. The publication's work has often been recognized for excellence by the state chapter of the Society for Professional Journalists. Purdue's action also caught the attention of First Amendment watchdog organizations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. "Purdue's actions reflect a betrayal of the press freedom our Constitution requires it to uphold," said Dominic Coletti, a program officer on FIRE's campus advocacy team. "The university's commitment to institutional neutrality does not require it to abandon its relationship with the Exponent." Nelson, the former editor who will be a senior at Purdue this fall, said the university's move isn't an act of overt censorship but demonstrates the university is attempting to hinder the independent publication's ability to do its job. There's not one news item he can point to that would have inspired this decision, but Nelson said it's rather the school's uneasiness with an independent news source so close to campus. "It's a larger multi-billion dollar organization that is leveraging its weight and power to suppress the voice of a student newspaper," he said. "Of course, that's a First Amendment issue." Despite the changes, the Exponent is planning for business as usual. The distribution plan has been shifted to address the new challenges in the interim, and the smaller team of student journalists will continue producing news over the summer. "We're going to continue to do what we do and that is cover the news," Charters said. The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Have a story to tell? Reach Cate Charron by email at ccharron@ or message her on Signal at @ This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Purdue distances itself from student newspaper, wants school name removed
