The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:
1) Sierra Club needs only representational standing;
2) Rape conviction upheld;
3) Dakotans for Health denied Mandamus against Secretary of
State
Summaries follows:
SIERRA CLUB v. CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, 2021 S.D.
28: The Sierra Club sought to contest an
application for a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) in Clay County,
but the trial court held that the Sierra lacked standing. The SD Supreme Court affirmed the lower
court’s ruling that the Sierra Club lacked standing in its own right under SDCL
11-2-61. But, the matter was reversed
and remanded on the basis that the lower court failed to make the proper
inquiry into the doctrine of representational standing which could
support Sierra Club’s interest in the matter.
The Court stated in ¶31:
[T]he
correct focus for representational standing inquiry is whether the members must
participate as parties in order for Sierra Club to establish the claims raised
and obtain the relief sought. Here, Sierra Club does not seek monetary relief
on behalf of its members for injuries sustained, and the claims asserted focus
on the manner in which the Board exercised its authority. The relief Sierra
Club requests (reversal of the permit or a remand to further investigate) would
simply “inure to the benefit” of the members. Therefore, although Sierra Club’s
members might need to provide affidavits or testimony to establish standing as
the proceedings before the circuit court progress, their participation as
parties to the suit is not required.
This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by
Justice DeVaney
STATE v. TOWNSEND, 2021 S.D. 29: Defendant having been convicted by jury of 2nd
degree rape and simple assault, was sentenced to 30 years in prison, with 10
years suspended. The SD Supreme Court
affirmed, rejecting Defendant’s assertions on appeal related to alleged
insufficient evidence of force, plain error and ineffective assistance of
counsel. This decision is unanimous
(5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
DAKOTANS FOR HEALTH v. BARNETT, 2021 S.D. 30: The 2021 Legislature approved HJR 5003
(proposing that certain initiated measures and constitutional amendments
require approval by 3/5 of the votes cast), with submission to the voters set
for the next primary election, June 2022. Dakotans for Health sought to refer
HJR 5003 to voters in the 2022 General Election. Secretary of State rejected the Petition
filed by Dakotans for Health on the basis of procedural irregularity, “determin[ing] that HJR 5003 did not qualify as a ‘law which the
legislature may have enacted,’ pursuant to SDCL 2-1-3, and that the petition
did not contain a valid effective date as required by SDCL 2-1- 3.1.” In
response thereto, Dakotans for Health filed this original mandamus proceeding
in the SD Supreme Court. The Court
ordered expedited briefing and entertained oral argument on April 15, 2021,
just 3 weeks ago. Today’s decision
upholds the Secretary of State, denying the requested writ of mandamus. This decision is unanimous (5-0) and made as
a per curiam ruling.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
