WEST FARGO — A lawsuit against the city of West Fargo will continue after the North Dakota Supreme Court on Thursday, June 25, reversed a 2025 dismissal.

In December, the Associated General Contractors of North Dakota and the American Concrete Pavement Association–North Dakota Chapter, Inc. appealed the dismissal judgment filed in favor of the city of West Fargo.

The North Dakota Supreme Court determined in its Thursday, June 25, ruling that the district court made an error by

dismissing these claims as “moot,”

with the reasoning that the construction project is completed and can’t be undone, and the court additionally erred by denying the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint “on grounds the association lacks standing to challenge a city ordinance.”

The dismissal was reversed, so the case will continue. The attorney for the plaintiffs/appellants, Nicholas Surma, said his team is very pleased with the outcome.

“(We) look forward to a decision on the merits whether the city can continue to substitute itself for private contractors or whether projects must be competitively bid to achieve the law’s intended purpose — allowing the free market to provide the best quality at the best price for West Fargo’s taxpaying citizens,” Surma said in a written statement.

Rachel Richter Lordemann, director of communications for the city of West Fargo, said the city doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation.

The plaintiffs, collectively referred to as the “association,” originally filed a claim against West Fargo in May 2025, arguing the city violated competitive bidding requirements for a public improvement project by delegating some tasks to city staff rather than putting them up for bid.

North Dakota Century Code at the time stated the threshold for bidding the construction of a public improvement project was $200,000, according to Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling. The project in this case was expected to exceed that cost.

The plaintiffs asked the court to enter a judgment saying the city can’t self-perform any public improvement that exceeds $200,000, and violated state law by doing so in the Improvement District No. 2290 mill and overlay project. They also asked the court to prohibit West Fargo from self-performing work on that project and future projects required to be publicly bid on under state law.

West Fargo approved a contract for the project in June 2025, and the project was completed in September. After the project was finished, the city adopted an ordinance allowing the city to self-perform routine street maintenance with available funds, regardless of the estimated value, if the city feels it’s in its best interest to internally handle the job.

After the ordinance passed, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to include, among other things, a request for a declaration that the ordinance is invalid. The district court allowed the case to be put on hold while the plaintiffs gathered information, but denied their challenge of the ordinance.

“The court reasoned the association lacked standing to challenge the ordinance because the association had not alleged ‘an actual or threatened injury stemming from action under the ordinance’ or that ‘the City has exercised authority under the ordinance,’” the Supreme Court ruling said.

After oral arguments, the claims were dismissed without prejudice or costs awarded to either party.

Dismissals without prejudice can rarely be appealed, since plaintiffs can simply refile their case, however, the Supreme Court found an appeal was appropriate because the association has no ability to seek the relief it was when originally filing the case. The project can’t be undone.

The Supreme Court determined the public interest exception to mootness applies in this case, because “competitive bidding laws are designed to protect the public, and a decision will guide public officials administering political subdivisions across the state.”

The Supreme Court also disagreed with the district court’s ruling that the association had no ability to challenge the ordinance. It said the association has alleged facts that demonstrate the ordinance presents a threat to the interests of its members.

Bruce Thornton was already grateful the Houston Rockets traded up with the New York Knicks to take him, but the former Ohio State star also quickly realized there was another incentive to landing in Texas.

After being projected by many mock drafts in the late 40s or early 50s entering the week, the Buckeyes’ all-time leading scorer sounds more than ready for his opportunity in Houston. He met with the media following the selection.

Were you anxious going into the night not knowing where you would land?

Bruce: For me, I’m not picky at all. Whoever wanted me and gave me, a kid from Fairburn, Georgia, an opportunity, I would be very blessed and very grateful. I’m so thankful for the Houston Rockets just taking a chance on me. And I’m going to do everything I can in my power to be the best player I can be for the Houston Rockets.

Did you know that you weren’t going to the Knicks at all?

Bruce: I knew at the last minute. Somebody said I got the wrong hat. I’m like, “What do you mean?” Then I heard the Houston Rockets. I’m like, “No state tax, so that’s even better.”

How does being a four-time team captain prepare you for the expectations of leadership as an NBA point guard?

Bruce: First, I want to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, because without him, I wouldn’t be here right now. But for my experiences at Ohio State, being a four-year guy, it definitely helped me. The experience of just going through college, going through life and the stuff that you just go through, it definitely helped me prepare to talk to grown men at this level. But I feel like the experience I have at Ohio State is going to prepare me to be the best player I can be as a Houston Rocket.

What was the biggest challenge you had to overcome in order to get to this point in your life right now?

Bruce: I feel like for me, from a basketball standpoint, I didn’t make it to March Madness my first three years of college. A lot of people chose to leave and make better situations to get to March Madness, but I just wanted to do it at Ohio State. So I did everything I could. My coaching staff helped me. I did a lot of praying, using my faith to the best of my ability, and I got through it my senior year. One of the best feelings, I ever decided to stay at Ohio State for all four years.

Throughout your basketball journey, is there someone that you’ve considered a mentor or looked up to that shaped the player you are today?

Bruce: First, my mother. She sacrificed so much. She also played at the University of Georgia, so she taught me a lot of things like handling the cookie jar, make sure you hold your follow through, boxing out, stuff I didn’t want to hear at all. But she definitely helped me.

And my friends from back home. It was all of our dream to be in the NBA. And for them to have my support, and having a great support cast throughout this journey was a big thing. The village I had behind me throughout this journey really helped me get to the point I am right now.

When Rockets fans start watching you professionally, is there a part of your game that you think will surprise them the most?

Bruce: I think I’m a winner. I want to win everything I possibly can. I’m trying to impact winning. For me, I feel like everybody eats when everybody wins. So I do everything I can. Whatever they ask me to do, I’m going to make sure I do it at a high level and with a great attitude.

When people look back at your career 10 or 15 years from now, what do you hope they remember most about you?

Bruce: I just hope I’m just a kid that gave everything I got each and every night. When I put that jersey on, I’m just going to perform at the best I can each and every night. I’m never going to quit. I’m never going to stop giving up. So I hope everybody can take that one thing from me, that when you have the opportunity, take full advantage of it.

What do you think you will bring to the Houston Rockets in terms of your attitude, work ethic and willingness to get one percent better each and every day?

Bruce: I think it starts on defense. Me just getting to the ball, being disruptive and making big-time shots. We got great players like Sengun and KD at a very high level. So me just filling in my role at a high level, doing the things they need me to do and just impacting winning as much as I possibly can, and being a great teammate in the locker room.

What is the biggest adjustment you expect to have to make in the NBA?

Bruce: The biggest adjustment is probably playing over 100 games in a year. There’s a deep playoff team this year. So [it’s up to] me just adjusting my body, having the time management skills to play over 100 games and try to win a championship.

Seventeen Republican attorneys general, including South Dakota’s, have sued California over a state law that requires plastic packaging producers to move away from single-use plastics, alleging that the law will raise costs for consumers across the country.

Led by Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, the

complaint

filed Monday in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of California challenges California’s Plastics Act. Under the law, which took effect May 1, plastic packaging producers

must reduce single-use plastic

by 25% and ensure all packaging is recyclable or compostable by 2032.

Joining Hilgers in the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. They say the law is an attempt by California “to impose its own policy preferences on the entire nation.”

The law “will cause steep and persistent price increases” on products used daily by consumers in other states, the plaintiffs argue.

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said in a news release that the California law “imposes unreasonable, burdensome requirements on businesses and consumers nationwide.”

The attorneys general also assert that the law violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by interfering with interstate commerce, and that it improperly extends regulatory authority to a private organization. California appointed a nonprofit, the Circular Action Alliance, to help develop, administer and implement the law.

“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country. If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities,” Hilgers said in a news release. “Nebraska is continuing to fight for consumers against California’s overreach.”

Environmental advocacy groups also

sued

California earlier this month, alleging the new regulations “fall short” in meeting the state’s aims of reducing plastic packaging, and that they contain loopholes for producers.

— This story was originally published on southdakotasearchlight.com.