City Highlight | Mobridge

MOBRIDGE KATY HUTCHINS

MOBRIDGE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS

Located in the north-central part of South Dakota, Mobridge embraces the banks of the beautiful Missouri River. Mobridge offers a unique experience for those who may just visit for a day or for those that wish to stay and create lifelong memories. Visitors can enjoy Mobridge’s many community activities, shopping, hunting, fi shing, or simply relaxing at our luxurious casino and hotels. The growing population is supported by farming and ranching operations, retail businesses, and a local K-12 school district which offers educational opportunities to a diverse community.

In Mobridge there are several attractions honoring Native Americans, our early ancestors, and their rich contributions made to South Dakota. Monuments honoring Chief Sitting Bull, a Hunkpapa Teton Sioux spiritual leader, and Sacagawea, a Lemhi Shoshone woman, are found overlooking the Missouri River. Today, these monuments continue to serve as reminders of our past with a growing hope for peace and unity in the diverse community.

Culturally rich attractions for artisans and historians can also be found in Mobridge. In the downtown area, the Scherr-Howe Event Center features the renowned murals painted by Oscar Howe (1915-1983), Yanktonai Indian artist and member of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. His art depicts Native American traditions and early Dakota life on the prairie through a modernist aesthetic painting style. Then, located near a scenic lookout off the banks of the river, South Dakota native sculptor John Lopez honors the Mobridge community with ‘Walleye Up Statue’, a uniquely welded scrap-metal sculpture that features a rodeo cowboy riding a walleye. Sportsmen and women fl ock to Mobridge as a mecca for the rich wildlife bounties offered by the Missouri River and its adjacent prairies. In January, Mobridge hosts their Annual Ice Fishing Tournament. Now hosting well over 550 teams, this event welcomes people from all over the United States. In July, Mobridge welcomes professional cowboys and cowgirls to compete in the Annual Stampede Rodeo, and parades grace the decorated streets and windows of thriving retailers inviting all visitors to the Mobridge community while celebrating our nation’s birth.

There may not be another city in South Dakota that offers a richer history honoring our pioneering forefathers and Native American ancestors than Mobridge, South Dakota. Our inviting community offers peace and comfort to all who travel and seek adventure on the prairie and along the beautiful Missouri River.

Stop for a visit and stay for a lifetime. We think you’ll like our little town. ■

MISSOURI RIVER BRIDGE

PHOTOS: Left to right: ANNUAL SITTING BULL STAMPEDE PRCA RODEO; ICE FISHING, Carissa Aberle; WALLEYE UP STATUE by John Lopez; aerial view of the MISSOURI RIVER near Mobridge.

Supreme Court Midterm for Local Governments

LISA SORONEN, STATE AND LOCAL LEGAL CENTER

The Supreme Court’s docket is full for the 2021-22 term. The SLLC Supreme Court Preview for Local Governments summarizes a number of important cases for local governments the Supreme Court agreed to hear this term as of July 2021—including a gun case, two First Amendment cases, and a case involving whether emotional distress damages are available under a number of federal anti-discrimination statutes. This article summarizes three more interesting cases for local governments to be decided this term—including two more First Amendment cases.

SHURTLEFF V. CITY OF BOSTON*

The issue the Supreme Court will decide in Shurtleff v. City of Boston* is whether fl ying a fl ag on a fl agpole owed by a government entity is government speech. If it is, Boston may refuse to fl y a Christian fl ag.

Boston owns and manages three fl agpoles in an area in front of City Hall. Boston fl ies the United States and the POW/MIA fl ag on one fl agpole, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts fl ag on another fl agpole, and its own fl ag on a third fl agpole. Third parties may request to fl y their fl ag instead of the city’s fl ag in connection with an event taking place within the immediate area of the fl agpoles.

Camp Constitution asked the city to fl y its Christian fl ag while it held an event near the fl ag. The city refused its request to avoid government establishment of religion.

The First Circuit held that fl ying a third-party fl ag on a city hall fl ag poll is government speech meaning the city didn’t have to fl y the Christian fl ag.

According to the First Circuit, in two previous cases the Supreme Court has developed a three-part test for determining when speech is government speech. The Court looks at the history of governmental use, whether the message conveyed would be ascribed to the government, and whether the government “effectively controlled” the message because it exercised “fi nal approval authority over their selection.”

FLAGS AND GOVERNMENT SPEECH: Shurtleff v. City of Boston will decide if fl ying a fl ag on a fl agpole owed by a government entity is government speech. iStock.com/rarrarorro

Regarding the history of governments using fl ags, the First Circuit stated “that a government fl ies a fl ag as a ‘symbolic act’ and signal of a greater message to the public is indisputable.”

The First Circuit also concluded that an observer would likely attribute the message of a third-party fl ag on the city's third fl agpole to the city.

Finally, the First Circuit had no diffi culty concluding the city controlled the fl ags. “Interested persons and organizations must apply to the City for a permit before they can raise a fl ag on this fl agpole.”

KENNEDY V. BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT*

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District,* the Court will decide whether the First Amendment protects a high school football coach who, joined by students, prayed after football games.

According to Joseph Kennedy, his religious beliefs required him to pray at the end of each game. Students eventually joined him as he kneeled and prayed for about 30 seconds at the 50-yard line.

When the school district found out, the superintendent directed Kennedy not to pray with students. After

widely publicizing his plan, Kennedy announced he would pray after a particular game even if students joined him. He was ultimately put on administrative leave and didn’t apply to coach the next fall.

The Ninth Circuit held that Kennedy had no First Amendment free speech right to pray because he was speaking as a “government employee” rather than as a “private citizen.” And even if he was speaking as a private citizen the Ninth Circuit held the district could prevent him from praying because of Establishment Clause concerns.

The Ninth Circuit concluded Kennedy was speaking as a public employee when he prayed because he “was one of those especially respected persons chosen to teach on the fi eld, in the locker room, and at the stadium. He was clothed with the mantle of one who imparts knowledge and wisdom. Like others in this position, expression was Kennedy's stock in trade. Thus, his expression on the fi eld—a location that he only had access to because of his employment— during a time when he was generally tasked with communicating with students, was speech as a government employee.”

The Ninth Circuit also held that even if Kennedy’s speech was private, avoiding violating the Establishment Clause was an “adequate justification for treating Kennedy differently from other members of the general public.” Per the Ninth Circuit an objective observer would know “Kennedy actively sought support from the community in a manner that encouraged individuals to rush the fi eld to join him and resulted in a conspicuous prayer circle that included students.” “Viewing this scene, an objective observer could reach no other conclusion than [the school district] endorsed Kennedy's religious activity by not stopping the practice.”

VEGA V. TEKOH*

The SLLC amicus brief in Vega v. Tekoh* argues police offi cers should not be able to be sued for money damages if they fail to provide a Miranda warning.

Terrance Tekoh was tried for unlawful sexual penetration. At trial he introduced evidence that his confession was coerced. A jury found him not guilty. Tekoh then sued the officer who questioned

America’s Codification Experts

Serving more than 0 South Dakota Clients

American Legal Publishing has been America’s codification services leader for more than 80 years with a reputation for providing exceptional value, quality and support.

Employee-owned, with more attorneys on staff than any other code service, our expert team provides legal reviews, ordinance codification, supplementation and mobile-friendly online code and meeting minutes solutions to municipalities of all sizes.

Visit www.amlegal.com to learn how we can help you

Ross Heupel, Codification Consultant Phone: 513-720-7805 Email: Rossh@amlegal.com

him, Deputy Carlos Vega, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claiming Vega violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by not advising him of his Miranda rights.

Section 1983 allows persons to sue government offi cials for money damages who subjected them to constitutional violations. States and local governments generally pay money damages awarded.

The Ninth Circuit held Tekoh could bring a Section 1983 case.

According to the Ninth Circuit, following Miranda there was much debate over whether Miranda warnings were “constitutionally required.” In Dickerson v. United States (2000), the Supreme Court held that Congress could not overrule Miranda via a federal statute that provided confessions were admissible as long as they were voluntarily made, regardless of whether Miranda warnings had been provided. Miranda, the Supreme Court reasoned, was “a constitutional decision.”

So, according to the Ninth Circuit: “Dickerson strongly supports Tekoh's argument that a plaintiff may bring a § 1983 claim predicated on a Miranda violation when the un-Mirandized statement is used against him in criminal proceedings.” “Because Dickerson made clear that the right of a criminal defendant against having an un-Mirandized statement introduced in the prosecution's case in chief is indeed a right secured by the Constitution, we conclude that Tekoh has a claim that his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination was violated.”

The SLLC amicus brief argues that Miranda isn’t a constitutional right but is instead a judge-made prophylactic rule. “A plaintiff can surely bring suit under §1983 if he is actually deprived of his constitutional rights by a coercive interrogation— for instance, if he is actually forced into an involuntary confession that is later used against him in a criminal trial. But a plaintiff just as surely cannot bring suit under §1983 if he is not deprived of his constitutional rights, and instead is deprived only of a prophylactic protection that this Court has announced to preserve those rights.”

The brief points out that if a police offi cer fails to provide a Miranda