‘Riot Boosting Act’ draws ridicule

RAPID CITY – As a result of a subtle comment he made, federal Judge Lawrence L. Piersol received a round of laughter from throngs attending his June 12 hearing about a court challenge that natives and allies filed over South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem’s new “Riot-Boosting Act”.

Noem’s stated reason for submitting the measure to the South Dakota Legislature was conflict anticipated, especially from out-of-state interests, over the Canadian TC Energy Corp. (formerly TransCanada) plan to build the rest of its tar-sands crude-oil slurry route through the Lakota’s’ unceded 1868 Ft. Laramie Treaty territory in Nebraska, South Dakota and Montana.

When Piersol questioned the authorship of the legislation, Noem’s defense attorney said he didn’t know who wrote it. The plaintiffs’ lawyer said he “wouldn’t be surprised” if it was written by the company behind the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline construction.

Piersol, himself a former state legislator, asked, “Who wrote this?” Then, he mused,” It doesn’t look like it was the Legislative Research Council.”

Under normal procedure, bills are submitted to the Legislative Research Council of the legislature for review, corrections and standardization, before going to lawmakers for consideration. However, Noem fast-tracked this item in March during the 2019 session.

Piersol looked sober as a judge and kept a straight face as his remark caused hundreds of hearing-goers to burst into laughter.

They were seated in his courtroom and two other courtrooms that security guards opened to the overflow crowd, providing for closed-circuit electronic audio-visual transmission of the proceedings.

Dakota Rural Action, Indigenous Environmental Network, NDN Collective, the Sierra Club, Dallas Goldtooth and Nick Tilsen are the plaintiffs in the case asking the judge to rule the law unconstitutional because it violates free speech and assembly.

The American Civil Liberties Union and its state chapter are the plaintiffs’ lawyer. The South Dakota Attorney General’s Office is defending the state in the case named Dakota Rural Action v. Noem.

The plaintiffs want an injunction from the judge to keep the law from going into effect until after the court reaches a decision.

The defense seeks to establish the law as constitutional or refer the case to the state Supreme Court for a decision.

Also at issue is whether county sheriffs should be defendants, as charged, since they would be the ones who decide on arresting individuals for riot boosting.

A Main Street march and rally outside the Rapid City federal building preceded the hearing, drawing about 200 participants onto the sidewalks.

They carried signs and chanted slogans calling for “protection of water protectors” who would face stiffer civil and criminal penalties than pipeline fighters have in the past, according to the new law.

Stemming from Senate Bill 189, the full name of the legislation is “An Act to establish a fund to receive civil recoveries to offset costs incurred by riot boosting, to make a continuous appropriation therefore, and to declare an emergency.”

The emergency declaration suspends certain caveats and allows funds to be applied immediately.

Judge Piersol made no rulings from the bench and declared an indefinite recess after listening to the parties.

(Contact Talli Nauman at talli.nauman@gmail.com)

Visit Original Source