PIERRE, S.D. -- Gov. Kristi Noem is getting involved in a legal challenge to the marijuana-legalization ballot initiative approved by South Dakota voters in November. A civil-rights group says the move adds to frustration being felt by voters in the current political environment.

Last week, Noem issued an executive order, saying the state's Highway Patrol superintendent has the legal standing to move forward with a lawsuit against the amendment.

In November, 53% of South Dakota voters endorsed legalizing marijuana for those 21 and older. Libby Skarin, campaigns director at the ACLU of South Dakota, said to see these efforts after the vote has taken place is disheartening.

"It does seem like an attempt to either suppress the voices of voters or to tell voters that they don't know what's best, that the government knows what's best for them," Skarin said.

The suit was first filed shortly after the election. Those behind it say the ballot question went beyond the scope of amending the constitution because it's too broad. But supporters, with the backing of the state Attorney General, argue it was confined to a single subject.

Prior to the vote, Noem voiced strong opposition to legalizing marijuana, citing concern about the impact on kids and communities.

Skarin said she understands opponents wanting to question technicalities surrounding the process of voting on these changes. But this follows a similar response by state leaders when voters endorsed campaign finance changes in 2016.

She said the pattern almost defies state history, as South Dakota was the first state to adopt the ballot initiative process in 1898.

"And coming from a government that often references the notions of freedom and of voters knowing what's best, I think that we're seeing a mismatch between what government officials say and what government officials do," she said.

She said while the legal challenge is independent of efforts nationally to overturn election results, it echoes what's happening on a broader scale. She suggests for voters who feel politicians are cutting off democracy for the sake of personal gain, this might add to that perception.


get more stories like this via email

New Mexico demonstrators will join nationwide protests today to oppose policies of the Trump administration.

The "Good Trouble Lives On" nonviolent day of action continues a series of demonstrations across the country. Marches and candlelight vigils will honor Democratic Congressman John Lewis on the fifth anniversary of the civil rights icon's death. Lewis often advocated for getting into "good trouble" to oppose injustice.

Caroline Yezer, organizer for the activist group Indivisible Taos, one of the groups marching Thursday, said the protests will draw attention to President Donald Trump's reshaping of the federal government.

"If we can make it more visible how many people are outraged by the current policies of the Trump administration, the more chance we have of emboldening judges and politicians and others to take legal action," Yezer contended.

Yezer noted Taos demonstrators will line the streets at the corner of Civic Plaza Drive and Paseo Del Pueblo Norte starting at noon. Similar events are scheduled in Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Las Cruces and other New Mexico cities.

Since taking office, Trump has floated the idea of a federal crackdown on U.S. protesters. Last month, he deployed 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles during protests over the mass arrest of immigrants by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Yezer cautioned the federal response should encourage people to be careful when demonstrating but she admires those in Taos who protest every day.

"I think that nothing worth fighting for is easy and I think we all know that this is a long fight," Yezer asserted. "Even though we're pacing ourselves, I have to say I'm really blown away by the people who are showing up with a sign every day."

Lewis, who died in 2020, was severely beaten by Alabama state troopers in 1963 when he led a group of voting rights protesters across a bridge in Selma, Alabama. The incident increased pressure on Congress to pass the 1965 Voting Rights Act.


get more stories like this via email

A case with national implications on the power of the U.S. president to use state National Guard troops to quell protests now rests with a panel of three district court judges after a hearing on Tuesday ended without a decision.

Gov. Gavin Newsom wants the court to force President Donald Trump to relinquish control of the California National Guard, which was deployed over Newsom's objections to Los Angeles following unrest over immigration raids.

Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general for the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, said the court has no power to review the President's decision.

"The President has the discretion to decide what level of forces are necessary to counter the threat, necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion or execute those laws," Shumate argued. "In the President's judgment, 2,000 National Guard are necessary to execute the laws in California and the record bears that out."

The governor and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have countered local law enforcement had the situation under control. They contend the Guard's presence only inflamed tensions and raised the risk of violence. Schumate asserted the troops are essential to enforce immigration laws.

Samuel Harbourt, the attorney representing Gov. Newsom and the State of California, told the court the law requires the president to go through the governor, and denied the protests constituted an "invasion" or "rebellion."

"It would defy our constitutional traditions of preserving state sovereignty, of providing judicial review for the legality of executive action, of safeguarding our cherished rights to political protest," Harbourt outlined.

Harbourt noted the deployment in Los Angeles draws the California National Guard away from critical work at the state level, including wildfire prevention and drug interdiction.


get more stories like this via email

UPDATE: A statement about the arrest from the University of Cincinnati has been added. (8:10 a.m. MDT, Apr. 3, 2025)

A recent arrest on the University of Cincinnati campus is sparking outrage among civil rights advocates, raising new concerns about student speech, academic freedom and the treatment of Muslim and pro-Palestinian voices across the country.

A University of Cincinnati student was arrested this week - allegedly for waving a Palestinian flag. Videos posted online show five police officers tackling the student as he repeatedly asked if he was under arrest.

Khalid Turaani, CAIR-Ohio executive director, called the incident an attack on civil liberties.

"We unequivocally condemn the arrest of student activists and the alleged attack on freedom of speech and academic freedom. For police officers to attack a student for raising a Palestinian flag is beyond the pale as Americans," he said.

The University of Cincinnati released a statement on the incident:

"UC Police arrested a student who was protesting against a free speech demonstration occurring on campus that involved non-university affiliated preachers. Police officers warned the student several times not to impede the movement of the demonstrators. The student became involved in an altercation with the demonstrators and disregarded police officers' directions. Student was subsequently arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said the arrest fits a troubling national pattern. Over the past month, students at institutions such as Columbia, Georgetown and Tufts have been detained. Some have been transferred to detention centers in Louisiana or had their visas revoked.

Turaani said Americans around the country should be cautious.

"It's creating an atmosphere that is reminiscent of the McCarthyist era where people are going to be assaulted or jailed or targeted because of things that they say or because of the belief that they have," he continued.

Turaani warned the recent wave of arrests could especially impact international and Muslim students, who may feel silenced for speaking out, and speaks directly to them.

"You are in the forefront of this civil rights movement. Everybody went through that. It seems this is our turn, to defend the civil rights of the rest of America for freedom of expression, for academic freedom, for human rights," he said.



get more stories like this via email