SOUTH DAKOTA SETTLES SUIT AGAINST NCAA

PIERRE, S.D. (Seth Tupper / South Dakota Searchlight) – South Dakota won special terms for itself and financial concessions for universities across the country while settling a lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association, according to a Wednesday announcement from state Attorney General Marty Jackley.

The NCAA is the governing body for the highest level of college athletics. Jackley and the South Dakota Board of Regents sued the NCAA last year. The lawsuit alleged that a proposed $2.8 billion nationwide agreement to compensate athletes for their past participation in Division I sports would disproportionately burden smaller Division I schools, including South Dakota State University and the University of South Dakota.

Jackley said Wednesday in a news release that the NCAA will use a budget surplus of $55 million to reduce the amount of money that athletic conferences will have to pay toward the proposed athlete compensation agreement. The reduction will occur during the first year of the proposed decade of payments from conferences.

The NCAA, in a separate news release, said the surplus is available because “the national office surpassed financial goals for the fiscal year.” The NCAA’s release does not mention South Dakota’s lawsuit but says the decision to reduce the financial burden on member schools was made “in consultation with South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley.”

A copy of the settlement terms, provided by the Attorney General’s Office, shows that the NCAA agreed to credit Jackley “for his efforts in giving small schools and conferences relief.”

Jackley said the settlement reduces by 33% the amount that universities will pay toward the first year of the proposed $2.8 billion athlete compensation agreement, saving approximately $2 million for the Summit League and the Missouri Valley Conference, which include the two South Dakota schools.

“This settlement is for and about our student athletes,” Jackley said in his release.

The settlement also “provides the attorney general an opportunity to work with the NCAA on future reductions and stipulates that funding of the newly created Women’s Basketball Performance Fund remain intact with no reductions,” Jackley’s news release said. The performance fund, created in January, rewards teams that advance to the Division I Women’s Basketball Championship, similar to a previously existing arrangement for men’s teams.

In South Dakota-specific provisions, the settlement commits the NCAA president and select staff to meet with the presidents of SDSU, USD, the Summit League and Sioux Falls leaders to discuss “NCAA issues currently impacting state schools and opportunities to host future NCAA championships in the state.” During that meeting, the settlement terms say, the NCAA president “will acknowledge and credit the Summit League for the large attendance numbers the League has generated at the men’s and women’s basketball championships as a result of hosting the events in South Dakota.”

The NCAA also agreed to pay the South Dakota Board of Regents $24,815 to reimburse it for expenses incurred during the litigation.

The broader issue underlying the litigation is a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the NCAA’s prohibition on athlete compensation was a violation of antitrust laws. That led to a proposed $2.8 billion agreement last year to settle several class action lawsuits against the NCAA. In that litigation, athletes sued to recover back payment for their participation in college athletics. A federal judge in California is deciding whether to give final approval to the $2.8 billion agreement, known as the House v. NCAA settlement.

Settlement terms

The NCAA agreed to the following terms in its settlement with South Dakota, according to the text of communications provided by the state Attorney General’s Office:

The NCAA will credit the South Dakota Attorney General for his efforts in giving small schools and conferences relief when it announces the DI Board of Directors’ decision to reduce the amount of revenue withheld from all Division I conferences needed to make the first of the ten annual payments to settle the House litigation. NCAA will make this public announcement the week of April 21.

The NCAA will meet with the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office to explore possible ways to minimize the impact on the State arising from the NCAA’s future withholding of revenue to pay for the House settlement.

The NCAA President and select staff will meet in-person with the presidents of SDSU and USD, the Summit League, and other Sioux Falls leaders within the next twelve (12) months to discuss NCAA issues currently impacting State schools and opportunities to host future NCAA championships in the State. During the meeting, the NCAA President will acknowledge and credit the Summit League for the large attendance numbers the League has generated at the men’s and women’s basketball championships as a result of hosting the events in South Dakota.

Within thirty (30) days of dismissal of the Lawsuit, the NCAA will make a one-time payment to the South Dakota Board of Regents in the amount of $24,815 to reimburse expenses incurred by experts.

Please also accept this as confirmation that the NCAA does not intend to use revenue from the newly created Women’s Basketball Fund to pay for the House settlement.

 

SOUTH DAKOTA PUC DENIES CARBON PIPELINE PERMIT AGAIN, COMPANY VOWS TO RE-APPLY

PIERRE, S.D. (Makenzie Huber / South Dakota Searchlight) – Summit Carbon Solutions’ pipeline route as proposed in its permit application is “not viable,” South Dakota regulators determined Tuesday in Pierre. The Public Utilities Commission voted 2-1 to deny the company’s application, but Summit immediately pledged to reapply with a “reduced scope.”

It was the second South Dakota denial for Summit, which has been seeking a permit to build a portion of its proposed $9 billion pipeline through South Dakota since 2022. The commission denied the company’s first application in 2023, after which the company modified its route and reapplied.

The pipeline would carry carbon dioxide emissions captured from ethanol plants in five states to an underground storage site in North Dakota, where a Summit official has acknowledged some carbon could also be used to extract oil from old wells. The project seeks to capitalize on a broader federal push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and could qualify for federal tax credits tied to carbon sequestration.

Its path forward was complicated by the South Dakota Legislature’s passage of a carbon pipeline eminent domain ban, which was signed into law by Gov. Larry Rhoden in March. Eminent domain is a legal process that allows qualifying entities to acquire access to private land for projects in the public interest, with compensation for landowners determined by a court.

Summit had relied on that authority to survey land and secure access from property owners unwilling to sign voluntary easements.

A spokeswoman with the company vowed Tuesday in a prepared statement to refile an application for the project that “reflects a reduced scope and continued engagement with landowners and plant partners.”

Opposing landowners celebrate

Too many landowners at key points along the proposed route vowed to never sign an easement agreement for the project, rendering the application incomplete and ill prepared for the permitting process to continue, said Commissioner Kristie Fiegen during the meeting.

“Summit’s route is uncertain at this point,” Fiegen said. “We really don’t know the route. We don’t know the timeframes. We don’t know their plan.”

PUC staff said the permit could be denied because “substantive changes” will be needed to the application if the company can’t move forward with the route it has on file. Denying the application would then be “the cleanest path forward,” according to the staff’s filed recommendation.

Attorney Brian Jorde, representing landowners opposed to the project, said the application is impossible because “there’s nothing they can do to change these folks’ minds.” Seventy-nine South Dakota landowners declared they would never sign an easement, according to one of the commissioners.

“Is there another route?” Jorde said. “Yes, but not in this application.”

Property owners opposed to the pipeline applauded the commission’s decision. Ed Fischbach, a vocal critic of the project, said in a news release that the decision acknowledges “the company has run out of road to build” and frees landowners “to get on with their lives and businesses.”

But Canton Republican Rep. Karla Lems, who carried the successful eminent domain ban during the legislative session, said she has “a hard time believing” the project is over, especially if federal tax credits remain available.

The decision affirms that South Dakota is “open for business, but not for sale,” she said.

“If you have a great project and want to get it done in South Dakota, you should come in and do it the South Dakota way and people should be able to say yes or no to your project,” Lems said.

Summit officials ‘remain committed’ to state

The Public Utilities Commission instructed Summit earlier this month to present a plan to illustrate how the company can move forward – or not – under the new state law barring its use of eminent domain. At its previous meeting, the commission denied Summit’s request for a pause in permit proceedings.

Summit has permits in North Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa, but some of the permits are being challenged in court. Nebraska does not have a permitting process for the project. A bill to ban eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines is being considered in the Iowa statehouse.

Summit attorney Brett Koenecke opposed South Dakota regulators’ decision Tuesday, calling it “a prejudice” to the company pushed by opponents.

“You should ask yourselves why they’re fighting so hard to have this application denied and sent back,” Koenecke told commissioners. “I’d submit to you that the answer is likely they know it’s harder to restart.”

Commissioner Chris Nelson dissented from his colleagues Fiegen and Gary Hanson, arguing that Summit’s declaration that “they’re not going to challenge” the eminent domain ban, in addition to minor changes to the pipeline’s planned route, are enough for the project to move forward.

Summit filed paperwork with the commission this month stating that it would rather work with its current application and route than seek court orders or refer the ban to the voters, adding that “threatening legal action is counter-productive to attempting to do business in good faith in the state.”

In a prepared statement, the Summit spokeswoman said company officials are “disappointed” in the commission’s decision but “remain committed” to South Dakota and the project.

“Without it the ethanol industry, farmers and land values in the state will all suffer,” she said.

 

SECRETARY NOEM TO GIVE DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY COMMENCEMENT SPEECH

MADISON, S.D. (Dakota News Now) – Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has been selected as the spring commencement speaker for Dakota State University.

DSU announced on Wednesday that it extended the invitation while Noem was serving as governor. She was named the DHS Secretary by President Trump shortly after his 2024 Presidential Election win.

Noem will share remarks with DSU’s graduates based on her career in public service at the graduation commencement on May 10.

“It is an honor to be invited to speak at DSU’s commencement this year, and it is a joy to accept the invitation,” said Noem in a news release. “These students have put in years of hard work to get to this point and I’m looking forward to celebrating this incredibly special day with them and their families.”

DSU wrote that during her time as governor, Noem was “an unwavering champion of Dakota State” and supported cybersecurity as the next big industry in South Dakota through funding for expansions and research.

The spring commencement ceremony is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. at the DSU Fieldhouse. Tickets are required for general admission.

 

A DOZEN INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS REPORT VISA CANCELLATIONS IN SOUTH DAKOTA

SOUTH DAKOTA (John Hult / South Dakota Searchlight) – At least 10 international students at South Dakota’s public universities have reported their visas canceled this year, according to the South Dakota Board of Regents.

Two other reported cancellations were for former students in a program that allows student visa holders to work temporarily in jobs directly related to their field of study. A visa is a document showing a foreigner’s permission to visit, work or study in the country.

Board of Regents spokeswoman Shuree Mortenson did not identify which of the state’s six public institutions the students attended. A Dakota State University spokeswoman told South Dakota Searchlight, however, that no visa cancellations have been reported by any of the Madison school’s 198 international students.

The public has been privy to the details in just one of the cases, that of Indian doctoral candidate Priya Saxena. She sued Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem to prevent any action that would block Saxena from collecting her Ph.D. in chemical and biological engineering on May 10 from South Dakota Mines.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier ordered DHS to reinstate Saxena’s student status and leave her be, at least until the judge makes a call on whether to issue a further-reaching preliminary injunction in the case.

On the day Saxena would collect her degree at Mines, Noem will deliver the commencement speech at DSU. A news release from the school, sent Wednesday morning, notes that Noem was extended the invitation to speak while she was still governor of South Dakota, a position she vacated to lead DHS.

Saxena’s plight was one of the motivations for about 25 people who demonstrated Wednesday outside City Hall in Rapid City, as part of a protest led by Indivisible Rapid City to “call attention to the increasing disregard for basic constitutional protections — especially the right to due process, which applies to all people, not just U.S. citizens.”

Demonstrator Pat Braun held a sign referencing student visa holders and said she is upset that Saxena was targeted.

“It’s so ill-informed, so mean-spirited, so ugly,” Braun said.

South Dakota part of nationwide crackdown

The cancellations in South Dakota are among a crush of visa-policing actions taken by the Trump administration as part of a wider push to tighten immigration enforcement, including an uptick in arrests and deportations of undocumented immigrants.

The president issued two executive orders impacting student visas on Jan. 20. One directed DHS and the U.S. State Department to review and revoke the visas of international students engaged in what the order called “anti-Semetic” behavior. The order swept up students critical of Israel’s ongoing war against Hamas, including a Turkish woman attending Tufts University who penned a pro-Palestine opinion column, and whose apprehension by agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement was captured on a widely shared video.

The other executive order directs federal agencies to review visa programs more broadly, and instructs DHS Secretary Noem to “take immediate steps to exclude or remove” anyone in the U.S. who might be considered a threat to public safety.

Issues with visas or legal status have since befallen more than 1,000 students nationwide, The Associated Press reported last week. The wire service compiled the figure using statements from schools and state officials. Another outlet, Inside Higher Education, puts the figure at 1,700.

Several students or groups of students have sued the administration over the visa actions. On the same day Saxena was given a reprieve in her South Dakota case, a federal judge in Georgia signed a similar order meant to temporarily reinstate the student status of 133 international students.

South Dakota students

South Dakota Searchlight reached out to the Board of Regents and representatives of the state’s six public universities to inquire about visa status changes. The most recent report from the regents lists 2,233 international students in the state.

Northern State University and the University of South Dakota did not respond. The schools that did, aside from DSU in Madison, said in statements that their respective international student offices are offering visa guidance to students as needed.

In her statement on behalf of the regents, Mortenson said that “our universities are not directly involved in this process.”

“However, with less than three weeks remaining in the spring semester, we will assist affected students with their academic efforts to the best of our ability,” she wrote.

Searchlight also reached out to Augustana University, the state’s largest private four-year school, whose spokesperson said its international students had not been affected.

Federal information limited

In separate statements to South Dakota Searchlight, the DHS and State Department declined to say how many foreign students in South Dakota have had visas revoked.

The State Department issues visas for international students. It revokes visas “every day,” its statement read, and “will continue to do so.”

“When considering revocations, the department looks at information that arises after the visa was issued that may indicate a potential visa ineligibility under U.S. immigration laws, pose a threat to public safety, or other situations where revocation is warranted,” the statement read. “This can include everything from arrests, criminal convictions, and engaging in conduct that is inconsistent with the visa classification, to an overstay.”

DHS doesn’t issue visas, but is involved on the enforcement and monitoring side. It maintains the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), a database created after the 9/11 attacks and used to validate an international student’s ability to study in the U.S.

Schools must re-register international students through SEVIS each semester to verify that they’re fulfilling visa requirements. Schools can terminate the SEVIS record if a student violates their visa terms by, for example, not enrolling in a full course of study.

An international student with a visa needs a SEVIS record set to “active” status to attend school.

The recent SEVIS record terminations have come by way of Noem’s federal agency, not from schools.

A DHS spokesperson wrote that it “conducts regular reviews” of SEVIS records “to ensure visa holders remain in compliance with program requirements.”

If an issue is flagged, including “criminal arrests and other national security concerns,” the statement says, DHS may notify the State Department, which may revoke a student’s visa. “Individuals who remain in the U.S. without lawful immigration status may be subject to arrest and removal,” the statement reads. “For such individuals, the safest and most efficient option is self-deportation.”

Mines student targeted over Sturgis rally traffic violation

The revocation for Saxena, the doctoral candidate at South Dakota Mines, came after a “criminal records check,” according to documents filed in her lawsuit against Noem and the DHS.

Saxena learned of the revocation through the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi on April 7, six days after she defended her doctoral thesis, according to documents filed with her lawsuit.

Conviction for a “crime of moral turpitude,” a category that includes offenses like driving under the influence, can be grounds for visa revocation.

Saxena has been in the U.S. since 2020. Her only criminal conviction came in 2021, for the class two misdemeanor of failure to move over for flashing yellow lights. She was ticketed for driving under the influence during the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, but the charge didn’t hold up.

A blood test put her blood alcohol content on the evening of the stop at 0.06, which is below South Dakota’s 0.08 legal threshold for intoxication. Prosecutors dismissed the DUI charge.

Judge Schreier heard details about the incident during a Friday hearing on Saxena’s request for an emergency temporary restraining order.

Later that day, the judge ordered DHS to “set aside” its decision to mark Saxena’s visa status as terminated, to return her SEVIS record to “active” status and to refrain from taking any enforcement action against her until May 2, or until “further order from the court.”

The doctoral candidate faced “irreparable harm” if DHS moved forward, Schreier wrote.

Saxena’s lawyer, Jim Leach of Rapid City, decried the federal government’s actions against international students as “government gone wild.”

Saxena has authored or co-authored a dozen peer-reviewed papers in her field, a point Leach added to the initial complaint in her lawsuit. That’s the kind of person South Dakota and the U.S. ought to treasure, Leach said, not toss out for a traffic violation.

“The great things we have in this country are built on knowledge, on information,” Leach said. “They’re built by smart people like her, who can do the Ph.D. stuff in chemical and biological engineering that I never could have done.”