South Dakota officials deny state protest laws chill free speech

South Dakota officials are denying that a recently passed law would cause people to fear prosecution if they protest the Keystone XL pipeline. 

Gov. Kristi Noem, Attorney General Jason Ravsnborg and Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom are wholly denying a lawsuit's allegations that three state protest laws chill free speech, according to their response filed in federal court on Tuesday. 

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the federal lawsuit last month to challenge the laws, which include South Dakota's new law allowing the state to sue any person or organization for "riot boosting" or encouraging a protest where acts of violence occur.

Noem announced the proposed law as part of a legislation package aimed at Keystone XL pipeline protests during the final full week of the legislative session, and the Legislature passed the legislation within three days. 

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of Dakota Rural Action, Indigenous Environmental Network, NDN Collective, the Sierra Club and two individuals.

More:ACLU sues South Dakota over state's protest laws

The defendants — Noem, Ravnsborg and Thom — argue in their response that they have "sovereign immunity" from the lawsuit based on the U.S. Constitution's 11th Amendment regulating who can sue a state and the South Dakota Constitution's Article III regulating the courts in which the state can be sued. The defendants were acting in a "supervisory capacity" and only have "a general duty to see the laws of the state are implemented," thus they aren't liable for those laws, according to their response.

Although they largely denied the lawsuit's allegations, the defendants admitted in their response that under the law, a person doesn't need to be physically present during a riot to be charged with riot boosting. A person also doesn't need to be criminally convicted of rioting to be sued for riot boosting, according to the response.

The response also argues that Noem's statements made during a press conference announcing her pipeline protest legislation package aren't relevant in determining whether the law is constitutional.  

The defendants' response also denies the lawsuit's allegation that Noem didn't meet with the tribes or environmental groups to listen and develop solutions. Instead, the defendants say that "all citizens of the state, including tribes, tribal members, and environmental groups, were equally allowed to participate in the legislative process." 

South Dakota tribal leaders took issue with the proposed legislation when it was introduced, telling lawmakers they were blindsided by it because they weren't consulted. Many tribal chairmen were unable to attend the sole hearing held on the proposed legislation because they were in Washington, D.C. Since the end of the legislative session, several of South Dakota's tribes have requested that their flags not be displayed at the state Capitol because state elected officials disrespected them with the pipeline protest legislation.

More:Tribes: Pipeline protest bills 'destroyed' trust, hope for reconciliation

Noem, Ravnsborg and Thom are asking that a jury decide the case. The plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit are asking for the state's riot boosting law and criminal riot statutes to be found unconstitutional and for the state to be immediately prohibited from enforcing the three laws while the case proceeds in court.