North Dakota
North Dakota's new congressional age limits law could trigger a federal legal review
A newly passed North Dakota law could give the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity to revisit restrictions on who can run for federal office, a legal expert says.
North Dakotans voted Tuesday, June 11 to make it illegal for anyone to be elected or appointed to represent the state in Congress if they’d turn 81 before the end of their term.
The measure passed with nearly 61% approval from voters, according to unofficial results from the North Dakota Secretary of State’s Office.
Despite the amendment’s clear popularity with North Dakota voters, officials are expecting it to trigger a legal battle. A committee of state legislators estimated in April that the measure would take roughly $1 million to defend in court if passed.
Alyssa Goelzer / The Forum
State leaders have said the law may conflict with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 1995 that found states cannot restrict who can run for federal office.
Justices cited this same case — U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton — in March when they voted unanimously that states could not disqualify former President Trump from appearing on election ballots.
If there is a lawsuit against North Dakota’s age limits measure, and it does make it to the Supreme Court, there’s no guarantee justices will continue to affirm that precedent. The high court could always decide to rethink its 1995 ruling, said Michael Thorning, director of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Structural Democracy Project.
“The current court has demonstrated a willingness, I think, to review current precedent and overturn it,” Thorning said.
He pointed out only one current justice was on the bench back when the 1995 case was decided: Clarence Thomas.
Notably, Thomas was against the ruling. He authored a dissenting opinion joined by fellow conservatives Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia, as well as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate.
“Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress,” Thomas wrote in the opinion.
Overall, it’s statistically unlikely that the Supreme Court will hear the case. The court takes up only a tiny fraction of cases they’re petitioned to review.
Jared Hendrix, who led the charge to get the measure on the ballot, said he would support the court overturning the 1995 ruling.
“I do believe the (Thornton) case was very flawed in its reasoning,” Hendrix said.
Hendrix has said the measure is a way for voters to ensure that congressional delegates are mentally and physically fit for the job, and that they are in touch with the needs of their constituents.
The measure is especially timely considering some of the nation’s most visible politicians are also some of its most aged, Hendrix has said.
President Joe Biden, 81, and former President Donald Trump, 78, are the oldest and third-oldest American presidents ever, respectively. The current average age of Congress is also one of the oldest in the nation’s history, according to the Pew Research Center.
Hendrix has disputed lawmakers’ estimate that the measure could cost the state $1 million in legal fees, calling the figure “inflated.”
In order for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the law, someone would first have to sue the state over the measure.
Not just anyone would have standing to bring such a case. To have the right to fight a law in court, plaintiffs generally have to prove the law harms them in some way.
One example might be a candidate who is barred from seeking office under the policy, Thorning said.
None of North Dakota’s current D.C. delegation — or anyone in the state currently seeking election to Congress — is near age 81. The state’s oldest member of Congress, U.S. Sen. John Hoeven, is 67.
The 1995 Supreme Court case, which struck down an Arkansas congressional term limits law, stemmed from lawsuits originally filed by a private citizen, the League of Women Voters and a U.S. representative.
What would happen if the Supreme Court overturned the 1995 term limits case? States would have much greater authority to gatekeep who could run for federal office, Thorning said. This wouldn’t be limited to age.
“Would it be allowable, then, for the state, for instance, to say that members of Congress can only be elected from certain counties within their state, or certain cities, or only ones that have met certain educational qualifications?” he asked.
States would still have to comply with the 14th Amendment, he noted, which would prevent states from barring someone from running for Congress based on race or gender, for instance.
What if the Supreme Court declines to take the case, or upholds its 1995 ruling?
Congress could vote to amend the U.S. Constitution to set a nationwide age limit on elected officials.
Hypothetically, state legislatures could also bypass Congress by passing resolutions calling for the amendment to be adopted through a constitutional convention. According to U.S. Term Limits’ website, some states have already passed such resolutions. They would need a total of 34 in order to trigger a convention. There’s only ever been one U.S. Constitutional Convention, which took place in 1787.
This story was originally published on NorthDakotaMonitor.com
______________________________________________________
This story was written by one of our partner news agencies. Forum Communications Company uses content from agencies such as Reuters, Kaiser Health News, Tribune News Service and others to provide a wider range of news to our readers. Learn more about the news services FCC uses here.
North Dakota
Challengers declare victory after ND Supreme Court rules against Legislature’s attempt to alter term limits
BISMARCK — A constitutional ballot measure to amend the state’s term limits law as proposed by the Legislature will not appear on November’s ballot, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday, siding with petitioners who argued the Legislature exceeded its authority and violated the state constitution in proposing the changes.
“The people’s voice was heard,” Grand Forks County Commissioner Terry Bjerke said in reaction to the news.
Bjerke was a member of the sponsoring committee behind the successful 2022 effort to pass a term limits initiative, which amended the state constitution by capping legislative term limits to eight years in the House and eight years in the Senate. The amendment, which became article XV of the state constitution, also included a clause barring the Legislature from making constitutional changes to term limits.
During the 2025 session, however, lawmakers narrowly approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 4008, in which the legislature proposed Constitutional Measure 1, a ballot measure to amend the term limits language to allow legislators to decide in which chamber they want to serve their 16 years, and to repeal the clause limiting the legislative assembly’s authority to propose an amendment to alter or repeal term limits.
Bjerke and former Minot legislator Oley Larsen brought the lawsuit challenging the validity of the Legislature’s action in January, and the state Supreme Court
heard oral arguments in the case
this spring.
“Those term limits may only be altered by a measure proposed by the people rather than the Legislative Assembly. And yet a few years later, the Legislative Assembly is doing what they are prohibited from doing,” attorney Zachary Wallen argued on Bjerke and Larsen’s behalf.
Tanner Ecker / The Bismarck Tribune
The Legislature’s attorneys argued the clause prohibiting legislative proposals to alter the constitutional term limits language “infringes on our republican form of government” by “limiting the people’s ability to vote on amendments proposed by their elected officials.”
Justice Jon Jensen seemed skeptical of that argument during the April 2 hearing, questioning whether a second vote was appropriate.
“The public did speak on this. The public spoke on it when it passed the original constitutional amendment and they said, ‘Legislature, you don’t even get to propose a change.’ They have already spoken on it,” Jensen said. “You want a second shot, or a second bite at the apple, not a first one, a second.”
In Thursday’s ruling, all five justices sided with Bjerke and Larsen.
“We … conclude the Legislative Assembly’s adoption of S.C.R. 4008 violated N.D. Const. art. XV … and declare S.C.R. 4008 and Constitutional Measure 1 void … We enjoin the Secretary of State from placing Constitutional Measure 1 on the November 2026 general election ballot,” the ruling said.
Bjerke thanked the legal team that worked on behalf of their lawsuit, and said he was grateful the court reached the conclusion it did.
“I’m thrilled that what the people voted on and approved has been validated,” Bjerke said.
He added that the Legislature had “multiple opportunities” to address term limits prior to 2022’s initiated measure and chose not to, and gave a nod to the country’s coming milestone and the process by which voters expressed their support for term limits.
“We’ve lasted 250 years,” Bjerke said. “I have two words for those elected leaders who think they aren’t: everyone’s replaceable.”
North Dakota
Fargo woman convicted in North Dakota fraud case now faces charges in Minnesota: A deeper dive
FARGO, N.D. (Valley News Live) – A North Dakota woman who was sentenced to 180 days in jail in Cass County for defrauding healthcare providers and Medicaid programs is now facing additional fraud charges in Minnesota.
Christine Marie Pryor, 55, pleaded guilty in November 2024 to theft by deception involving more than $50,000. She was sentenced to first serve 180 days with a 3-year sentence suspended. She received credit for 44 days already served.
Pryor was ordered to pay $82,584.78 in restitution to Southeast Human Services in Fargo, where she worked between 2018 and 2019.
How the scheme unfolded
According to court documents, Pryor worked at multiple healthcare facilities in North Dakota and Minnesota between 2018 and 2023, using the identities and credentials of three licensed professionals without their knowledge. She submitted fraudulent Capella University diplomas and transcripts to gain employment.
Investigators say Pryor admitted she searched state licensing websites for therapists who shared her first name, then used those therapists’ last names and license numbers when applying for jobs.
At Southeast Human Services, where she worked as a Licensed Addiction Counselor, Pryor earned $55,584.82 while providing therapy services to approximately 150 patients. She also opened her own counseling center, NIAM Brain Injury Center, in Fargo between 2020 and 2021, and worked at The Lotus Center in Moorhead, Minnesota, from 2021 to 2023.
Court documents say the three licensed professionals whose identities were used told investigators they had no knowledge of Pryor’s actions and did not give her permission to use their information.
Two additional charges against Pryor in North Dakota, unauthorized use of personal identifying information, were dismissed on motion of the state.
Additional charges in Minnesota
Pryor is also facing charges in Minnesota. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison announced on Tuesday charges against Pryor in Clay County District Court for six theft offenses and six identity theft offenses related to defrauding Minnesota’s Medicaid program of more than $150,000.
According to the Minnesota complaint, Pryor claimed to provide psychotherapy and alcohol and drug counseling services to Medicaid recipients despite having no license or credentials to do so. Prosecutors allege she used the credentials and identities of three licensed professionals while claiming to provide Medicaid-funded services to 169 clients.
The Minnesota charges were filed as part of National Health Care Fraud Takedown Day, a joint effort involving the Department of Justice and more than 40 state Medicaid Fraud Control Units.
Copyright 2026 KVLY. All rights reserved.
North Dakota
NCAA Set to Change Unpopular Football Rule Just in Time for North Dakota State’s FBS Jump
North Dakota State playing in the FCS playoffs and College Football Playoff in back-to-back years? It’s likelier than you think.
That’s because on Wednesday, according to a report from Ross Dellenger of Yahoo! Sports, the NCAA Division I cabinet voted to repeal a rule that effectively barred teams transitioning from FCS to FBS from playing in postseason games in their first FBS seasons. The Bison are making that move along with Sacramento State in 2026.
The reported change has been a long time coming; the rule has hampered teams from immediate bowl eligibility for decades. Its good intentions of dissuading teams from rashly making the FCS-to-FBS leap have been rendered obsolete in recent years by the fact that programs generally arrive in FBS more prepared than ever before.
Consider the number of new FBS teams that have had to work within the provision in the past decade alone
That list includes: Liberty (home for the holidays at 6–6 in 2018), James Madison (8–3 in 2022 under coach Curt Cignetti, and barely able to play in a bowl at 11–1 in ’23 due to a lack of bowl-eligible teams), Jacksonville State (8–4 in ’23 before backing in like the Dukes), Missouri State (7–5 in 2025, also backed in) and Delaware (6–6 in ’25, ditto).
James Madison in particular became a cause célèbre in ’23 because it started the season 10-0, climbing as high as No. 18 in the AP Poll in mid-November. Then-Virginia attorney general Jason Miyares bandied about suing the NCAA before the Dukes lost 26–23 to Appalachian State, an event that caused the program to back off and accept a bid to play Air Force in the Armed Forces Bowl. James Madison lost that game 31–21, by which time Cignetti had left for Indiana.
There was a time when the FCS-to-FBS jump was an imposing one, and the NCAA did not want to incentivize making it lightly—not even a proud Florida A&M program could make a mid-2000s attempt at a jump stick. However, the Flames, Dukes and other teams have shown it’s not so great a climb for programs with the right resources and management.
Now the Bison and the Hornets stand to benefit.
How far can North Dakota State and Sacramento State go in the near term?
The Bison opened 12–0 last year before a shock loss to Illinois State in the FCS playoffs’ second round, so that question may answer itself. North Dakota State does not play a single Power 4 team—a potential strength-of-schedule albatross if it has designs on really surging. A potential roadblock: the fact that the Bison have to visit the Mountain West’s two favorites, UNLV (Oct. 10) and New Mexico (Oct. 24).
It’s a different story for the Hornets, a 7–5 squad a year ago whose move to the FBS is widely seen as a gamble on their growth potential. Sacramento State also does not play a major-conference team, but has a breakneck travel schedule ahead of it—the Hornets will visit Ypsilanti, Mich.; Bowling Green, Ohio; Muncie, Ind.; Mount Pleasant, Mich. and Honolulu. Combine that with a first-year coach—Oakland native and ex-MC Hammer choreographer Alonzo Carter—and it could be a long FBS debut in California’s capital.
More College Football From Sports Illustrated
Listen to SI’s college sports podcast, Others Receiving Votes, below or on Apple and Spotify. Watch the show on SI’s College YouTube channel.
Add us as a preferred source on GoogleFollow
-
Lifestyle7 minutes ago‘The Bear’ is back in the kitchen
-
Technology19 minutes agoAndroid 17’s new foldable gaming mode could make flippy phones more fun
-
World22 minutes agoShark attack survivor wakes from 10-day coma and shares first words with family at her hospital bedside
-
Politics27 minutes agoTrump administration pledges $150M in aid, deploys Navy warships after deadly Venezuela earthquakes
-
Sports37 minutes agoSecond Lady Usha Vance joins celebrity-filled crowd for Team USA’s group-stage finale in LA
-
Technology42 minutes agoDebt collection letter for debt you don’t owe? What to do now
-
Business49 minutes agoNewsom blesses Uber ballot measure truce — but fight over car crash lawsuits continues
-
Entertainment52 minutes agoLa Cruz offers a musical memorial to Pulse shooting victims on Pride Month
