Federal Court Dismisses Most Claims by Water Protectors against State and County over NoDAPL Protests

Here are the materials in Thunderhawk v. County of Morton (D.N.D.):

38 TigerSwan Answer + Counterclaim

44 Amended Complaint

45-1 Motion to Dismiss TigerSwan Counterclaim

49 County Motion to Dismiss

52 State Motion to Dismiss

56 TigerSwam Answer + 2d Counterclaim

57 TigerSwan Opposition to 45

58 Reply in Support of 45

61 Response to County MTD

62 Response to State MTD

67-1 Motion to Dismiss TigerSwan 2d Counterclaim

71 County Reply in Support of 49

73 TigerSwan Opposition to 67

76 State Reply in Support of 52

82 TigerSwan MSJ

84 Response to TigerSwan MSJ

85 TigerSwan Reply in Support of 82

87 DCT Order Dismissing TigerSwan Counterclaim

88 DCT Order

N.D. Supreme Court Accepting Comments Until December 30th on Proposed Temporary Rule to Allow Out of State Lawyers Practice

This temporary rule would allow out of state attorneys to practice in North Dakota so long as the “judicial emergency” (i.e., representing those water protectors who have been arrested) ends.

Notice here. Send comments to supclerkofcourt@ndcourts.gov

Anyone can and should comment. Generally speaking, comments from N.D. barred lawyers in support of this rule would be very helpful. Comments out-of-state lawyers who would practice under this rule would be also helpful. Short comments from non-lawyers in support of the rule would also be good, and especially from those who live in-state.

Proposed rule here.

A lawyer authorized to practice law in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred, suspended from practice, or otherwise restricted from practice in any jurisdiction may provide legal services in this jurisdiction on a temporary basis. The legal services must be assigned and supervised through the North Dakota Bar Association, which shall adopt an admission application substantially comporting with that used by the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.