Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey
South Dakota Supreme Court
| South Dakota Supreme Court |
|---|
|
| Court Information |
| Justices: 5 |
| Founded: 1861 |
| Location: Pierre |
| Salary |
| Associates: $194,241[1] |
| Judicial Selection |
| Method: Assisted appointment (Hybrid) |
| Term: 8 years |
| Active justices |
| Patricia DeVaney, Steven Jensen, Janine M. Kern, Scott P. Myren, Mark Salter |
Founded in 1861, the South Dakota Supreme Court is the state's court of last resort and has five judgeships. The current chief of the court is Steven Jensen. In 2018, the court decided 375 cases.
As of August 2021, all five judges on the court were appointed by a Republican governor.
The South Dakota Supreme Court meets in Pierre, South Dakota.
In South Dakota, state supreme court justices are selected through assisted appointment with a hybrid judicial nominating commission. Justices are appointed by the governor with the assistance of a commission who has no majority of members selected either by the governor or the state Bar Association. There are 10 states that use this selection method. To read more about the assisted appointment of judges, click here.
Jurisdiction
The court hears appeals of decisions rendered by lower courts in the state. The court also has authority over some original matters, and it can be called on to advise the state's governor regarding executive powers.
The South Dakota Supreme Court is responsible for administering the South Dakota Unified Judicial System. This system was created in 1975 through an amendment to the South Dakota Constitution. The court also develops a budget for the entire state court system and supervises the work of the state's circuit (trial) courts. The South Dakota Supreme Court makes rules for the practices and procedures of the state's court system, how the courts are administered, the terms of court, bar admissions and attorney discipline questions.[2]
The following text from Article V, Section 5 of the South Dakota Constitution covers the organization and jurisdiction of the court:
| “ | Jurisdiction of Courts
The Supreme Court shall have such appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by the Legislature, and the Supreme Court or any justice thereof may issue any original or remedial writ which shall then be heard and determined by that court. The Governor has authority to require opinions of the Supreme Court upon important questions of law involved in the exercise of his executive power and upon solemn occasions. The circuit courts have original jurisdiction in all cases except as to any limited original jurisdiction granted to other courts by the Legislature. The circuit courts and judges thereof have the power to issue, hear and determine all original and remedial writs. The circuit courts have such appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law. Imposition or execution of a sentence may be suspended by the court empowered to impose the sentence unless otherwise provided by law.[3][4] |
” |
| —South Dakota Constitution, Article V, Section 5 | ||
Justices
The table below lists the current justices of the South Dakota Supreme Court, their political party, when they assumed office, and the appointing governor.
| Office | Name | Party | Date assumed office | Appointed by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Dakota Supreme Court District 1 | Janine M. Kern | Nonpartisan | January 5, 2015 | Dennis Daugaard (R) |
| South Dakota Supreme Court District 2 | Mark Salter | Nonpartisan | July 9, 2018 | Dennis Daugaard (R) |
| South Dakota Supreme Court District 3 | Patricia DeVaney | Nonpartisan | May 24, 2019 | Kristi L. Noem (R) |
| South Dakota Supreme Court District 4 | Steven Jensen | Nonpartisan | November 3, 2017 | Dennis Daugaard (R) |
| South Dakota Supreme Court District 5 | Scott P. Myren | Nonpartisan | January 5, 2021 | Kristi L. Noem (R) |
Chief justice
The justices select their own chief justice. Chief justices are elected to four-year renewable terms.
Judicial selection
- See also: Judicial selection in South Dakota
The five justices of the South Dakota Supreme Court are appointed by the governor from a list of at least two names provided by the South Dakota Judicial Qualifications Commission.[5] The commission is made up of seven members: two circuit court judges, three lawyers, and two members of the public. The judges are elected by the judicial conference, the lawyers are chosen by the state bar association, and the members of the public are appointed by the governor.[6]
Newly appointed judges serve for at least three years, after which they must run in a yes-no retention election during a regularly scheduled general election. Subsequent terms last eight years.[7]
Chief justice
The chief justice of the court is chosen by peer vote and serves in that capacity for four years.[7]
Qualifications
To serve on this court, a judge must be:
- a U.S. citizen;
- a resident of South Dakota;
- a voting resident within his or her respective district;
- licensed to practice law in the state; and
- under the age of 70.*[7][8][9]
Vacancies
If a judge retires before the end of his or her term, a judicial nominating commission recommends candidates to the governor, and the governor selects a successor from that list. The new appointee serves for at least three years before running in a yes-no retention election.[7]
The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.
Elections
- See also: South Dakota Supreme Court elections
2024
The term of one South Dakota Supreme Court justice expired on January 7, 2025. The one seat was up for retention election on November 5, 2024. The filing deadline was August 6, 2024.
Candidates and results
South Dakota Supreme Court District 5
Scott P. Myren was retained to the South Dakota Supreme Court District 5 on November 5, 2024 with 79.3% of the vote.
Retention Vote |
% |
Votes |
|||
| ✔ | Yes |
79.3
|
279,216 | ||
No |
20.7
|
72,908 | |||
Total Votes |
352,124 | ||||
|
|
2022
Candidates and results
Salter's seat
South Dakota Supreme Court District 2, Mark Salter's seat
Mark Salter was retained to the South Dakota Supreme Court District 2 on November 8, 2022 with 80.1% of the vote.
Retention Vote |
% |
Votes |
|||
| ✔ | Yes |
80.1
|
228,724 | ||
No |
19.9
|
56,676 | |||
Total Votes |
285,400 | ||||
|
|
DeVaney's seat
South Dakota Supreme Court District 3, Patricia DeVaney's seat
Patricia DeVaney was retained to the South Dakota Supreme Court District 3 on November 8, 2022 with 80.1% of the vote.
Retention Vote |
% |
Votes |
|||
| ✔ | Yes |
80.1
|
230,126 | ||
No |
19.9
|
57,052 | |||
Total Votes |
287,178 | ||||
|
|
2020
Candidates and results
Fourth District
General election candidates
- Steven Jensen (Incumbent) (Nonpartisan) ✔
2018
Candidates and results
Kern's seat
General election candidates
- Janine M. Kern (Incumbent) (Nonpartisan) ✔
2014
Retention
| Judge | Election Vote |
|---|---|
| Lori Wilbur | 82.2%  |
| Steven Zinter | 81.8% |
| David Gilbertson | 83.4% |
Appointments
2025
South Dakota Supreme Court Justice Janine M. Kern is retiring on December 8, 2025. Kern's replacement will be Governor Rhoden's (R) first nominee to the five-member supreme court.
In South Dakota, state supreme court justices are selected through assisted appointment with a hybrid judicial nominating commission. Justices are appointed by the governor with the assistance of a commission who has no majority of members selected either by the governor or the state Bar Association. There are 10 states that use this selection method. To read more about the assisted appointment of judges, click here.
If a judge retires before the end of his or her term, a judicial nominating commission recommends candidates to the governor, and the governor selects a successor from that list. The new appointee serves for at least three years before running in a yes-no retention election.[7]
2021
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) appointed Scott P. Myren to the South Dakota Supreme Court on October 28, 2020. Myren joined the court in early January 2021 when Chief Justice David Gilbertson reached mandatory retirement at the age of 70 years old.[10][11] Myren was Noem's second nominee to the five-member supreme court.
At the time of the vacancy, state supreme court justices were appointed by the governor with help from a state judicial qualifications commission.
2018
Justice Zinter vacancy
Governor Kristi Noem (R) appointed Patricia DeVaney to the South Dakota Supreme Court on April 4, 2019. Noem selected DeVaney to succeed Justice Steven Zinter, who died on October 30, 2018.[10][12] DeVaney was Noem's first appointment to the five-member court.
Under South Dakota law, state supreme court justices are appointed by the governor from a list provided by the South Dakota Judicial Qualifications Commission. Newly appointed justices serve for at least three years, after which they must run in a yes-no retention election during a regularly scheduled general election. Subsequent terms last eight years.[7]
Justice Severson vacancy
South Dakota Supreme Court Justice Glen A. Severson retired in June 2018. He joined the court in 2009.
Under South Dakota law, supreme court justices are appointed by the governor from a list of at least two names provided by the South Dakota Judicial Qualifications Commission. Severson's replacement was Republican Governor Dennis Daugaard's second appointment to the five-member supreme court.
Caseloads
The table below details the number of cases filed with the court and the number of dispositions (decisions) the court reached each year.[13]
| South Dakota Supreme Court caseload data | ||
|---|---|---|
| Year | Filings | Dispositions |
| 2023 | 357 | 343 |
| 2022 | 340 | 332 |
| 2021 | 330 | 309 |
| 2020 | 317 | 337 |
| 2019 | 398 | 324 |
| 2018 | 346 | 375 |
| 2017 | 389 | 436 |
| 2016 | 436 | 353 |
| 2015 | 354 | 363 |
| 2014 | 388 | 347 |
| 2013 | 326 | 374 |
| 2012 | 324 | 401 |
| 2011 | 406 | 331 |
| 2010 | 341 | 344 |
| 2009 | 391 | 396 |
| 2008 | 362 | 344 |
| 2007 | 403 | 382 |
Analysis
Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters (2021)
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters, a study on how state supreme court justices decided the cases that came before them. Our goal was to determine which justices ruled together most often, which frequently dissented, and which courts featured the most unanimous or contentious decisions.
The study tracked the position taken by each state supreme court justice in every case they decided in 2020, then tallied the number of times the justices on the court ruled together. We identified the following types of justices:
- We considered two justices opinion partners if they frequently concurred or dissented together throughout the year.
- We considered justices a dissenting minority if they frequently opposed decisions together as a -1 minority.
- We considered a group of justices a determining majority if they frequently determined cases by a +1 majority throughout the year.
- We considered a justice a lone dissenter if he or she frequently dissented alone in cases throughout the year.
Summary of cases decided in 2020
- Number of justices: 5
- Number of cases: 73
- Percentage of cases with a unanimous ruling: 91.8% (87)
- Justice most often writing the majority opinion: Justice Jensen (18)
- Per curiam decisions: 2
- Concurring opinions: 3
- Justice with most concurring opinions: Justices Gilbertson, Kern, and Salter (1)
- Dissenting opinions: 3
- Justice with most dissenting opinions: Justices DeVaney, Kern, and Jensen (1)
For the study's full set of findings in South Dakota, click here.
Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship (2020)
- See also: Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship
Last updated: June 15, 2020
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country as of June 15, 2020.
The study presented Confidence Scores that represented our confidence in each justice's degree of partisan affiliation, based on a variety of factors. This was not a measure of where a justice fell on the political or ideological spectrum, but rather a measure of how much confidence we had that a justice was or had been affiliated with a political party. To arrive at confidence scores we analyzed each justice's past partisan activity by collecting data on campaign finance, past political positions, party registration history, as well as other factors. The five categories of Confidence Scores were:
- Strong Democrat
- Mild Democrat
- Indeterminate[14]
- Mild Republican
- Strong Republican
We used the Confidence Scores of each justice to develop a Court Balance Score, which attempted to show the balance among justices with Democratic, Republican, and Indeterminate Confidence Scores on a court. Courts with higher positive Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Republican Confidence Scores, while courts with lower negative Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Democratic Confidence Scores. Courts closest to zero either had justices with conflicting partisanship or justices with Indeterminate Confidence Scores.[15]
South Dakota had a Court Balance Score of 7.80, indicating Republican of the court. In total, the study found that there were 15 states with Democrat-controlled courts, 27 states with Republican-controlled courts, and eight states with Split courts. The map below shows the court balance score of each state.
Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores (2012)
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan outlook of state supreme court justices in their paper, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns." A score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology while scores below 0 were more liberal. The state Supreme Court of South Dakota was given a campaign finance score (CFscore), which was calculated for judges in October 2012. At that time, South Dakota received a score of 1.05. Based on the justices selected, South Dakota was the most conservative court. The study was based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges, or—in the absence of elections—the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice but rather an academic gauge of various factors.[16]
Noteworthy cases
The following are noteworthy cases heard before the South Dakota Supreme Court. For a full list of opinions published by the court, click here. Know of a case we should cover here? Let us know by emailing us.
Hyperion refinery air quality permit application
On January 24, 2013, the South Dakota Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion upholding the approval of an air quality permit that would enable the Hyperion Energy Center, a company based in Dallas, to begin construction on a $10 billion oil refinery. The permit was initially issued in August of 2009, and was upheld by a lower court in February 2012.[17] Hyperion's refinery would process 400,000 barrels of Canadian tar sands crude oil per day, producing low-sulfur gasoline, diesel, liquid petroleum gas, and jet fuel.[17]
A group of plaintiffs including the Sierra Club, Citizens Opposed to Oil Pollution, and Save Union County sued the South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment, alleging that the board erred in approving the air quality permit. The complaint said that the study the South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment conducted "did not include a full-scale environmental impact statement."[17] Justice Steven Zinter ruled that, "the record indicates that other [environmental impact statement] concerns will be addressed in other regulatory proceedings that are necessary to construct and operate the proposed facility."[17] The plaintiffs also argued that the permit was invalid because Hyperion did not begin construction by the original February 2011 deadline.[17] Building was delayed due to the financial crisis of 2008, which caused financing problems for the company. The Supreme Court ruled that the state was not in error when it extended Hyperion's construction deadline.[17]
To read the court's full opinion, click here.
History of the court
The United States acquired most of the area of South Dakota from France as a part of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. The Dakota territory was organized on March 2, 1861 and included all of present-day North and South Dakota, as well as parts of Montana, Wyoming, and Nebraska. It had 4,800 residents. The supreme court of the Dakota territory was established in 1861. This court remained in existence until South Dakota became a state in 1889. The territorial supreme court had a chief justice and two associate justices until 1879, when an additional associate justice was added. Justices were added twice more, so that by 1888, there were eight justices on the court. The justices were appointed by the U.S. president to serve four-year terms. Supreme court justices also rode circuit in the territory and acted as district court judges, thus hearing appeals on cases that they had previously decided. Lower courts in the territory include probate courts and justices of the peace.[18][19]
An "omnibus bill" to divide the Dakotas was approved in 1889, and the South Dakota Constitution was approved that same year. It is still in effect today. The constitution provided for a supreme court with three justices, each elected by voters at-large from districts, in partisan elections for eight-year terms. The constitution empowered the state legislature to increase the number of justices to five, which it did in 1909.[20][21]
An election was held in South Dakota to select the first state supreme court. Justices Dighton Corson, Alphonso Kellam, and John Bennett were elected and sworn-in on October 15, 1889. Since there was no capitol building for the new state yet, the oath-taking ceremony took place on the Hughes County courthouse veranda. The court used the county courthouse until 1891 when they began holding court in the state legislature's senate chambers. The South Dakota Supreme Court did not receive its own chambers until the autumn of 1905.[22]
In 1921 South Dakota law provided for nonpartisan supreme court elections. Terms were reduced to six years. Justices had broad appellate jurisdiction and were also empowered to issue a writ and render opinions to the governor in certain circumstances.[23]
In 1972, South Dakota voters passed the South Dakota Judicial Reorganization, Amendment C (1972) constitutional amendment, providing for a unified judicial system with the supreme court at its head.[24]
In 1980, state voters passed the South Dakota Appointment of Judges, Amendment A (1980) constitutional amendment revising the method of selecting judges. Today a judicial qualifications commission nominates two or more qualified candidates, and the governor makes an appointment, followed by retention elections every eight years. It is still a requirement that justices come from five state districts.[25]
Courts in South Dakota
- See also: Courts in South Dakota
In South Dakota, there is one federal district court, a state supreme court, and trial courts of general and limited jurisdiction. These courts serve different purposes, which are outlined in the sections below.
Click a link for information about that court type.
The image below depicts the flow of cases through South Dakota's state court system. Cases typically originate in the trial courts and can be appealed to courts higher up in the system.
Party control of South Dakota state government
A state government trifecta is a term that describes single-party government, when one political party holds the governor's office and has majorities in both chambers of the legislature in a state government. A state supreme court plays a role in the checks and balances system of a state government.
South Dakota has a Republican trifecta. The Republican Party controls the office of governor and both chambers of the state legislature.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ The salary of the chief justice may be higher than an associate justice.
- ↑ South Dakota Unified Judicial System, "Overview of UJS," archived November 14, 2018
- ↑ South Dakota Legislature, "Constitution," accessed September 25, 2019
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ South Dakota Secretary of State, "Judicial System," accessed April 15, 2025
- ↑ South Dakota Unified Judicial System, "Judicial Qualifications Commission," accessed April 15, 2025
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 American Judicature Society, "Methods of Judicial Selection: South Dakota," archived October 2, 2014
- ↑ Under the South Dakota code, a supreme court justice who turns seventy while in office must be "automatically retired on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of January next after the general election at which members of the Legislature are elected."
- ↑ Justia US Law, "Section 16-1-4.1: Mandatory retirement of justices at age seventy—Conclusion of pending matters," accessed September 10, 2014
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 KEVN, "Gov. Kristi Noem to appoint Judge Scott Myren to South Dakota Supreme Court," October 28, 2020 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "appt" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Capital Journal, "Chief Justice Gilbertson to retire, by law, Jan. 5 2021," January 8, 2020
- ↑ Office of Gov. Dennis Daugaard, "Governor Daugaard Orders Flags Half-Staff In Honor Of Supreme Court Justice Steven L. Zinter," October 30, 2018
- ↑ South Dakota Unified Judicial System, "Annual Reports," accessed September 27, 2023
- ↑ An Indeterminate score indicates that there is either not enough information about the justice’s partisan affiliations or that our research found conflicting partisan affiliations.
- ↑ The Court Balance Score is calculated by finding the average partisan Confidence Score of all justices on a state supreme court. For example, if a state has justices on the state supreme court with Confidence Scores of 4, -2, 2, 14, -2, 3, and 4, the Court Balance is the average of those scores: 3.3. Therefore, the Confidence Score on the court is Mild Republican. The use of positive and negative numbers in presenting both Confidence Scores and Court Balance Scores should not be understood to that either a Republican or Democratic score is positive or negative. The numerical values represent their distance from zero, not whether one score is better or worse than another.
- ↑ Stanford University, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns," October 31, 2012
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 Sioux City Journal, "SD Supreme Court upholds Hyperion refinery permit," January 24, 2013
- ↑ State of North Dakota Courts,"The Supreme Court of the Dakota Territory," accessed June 26, 2024
- ↑ State Historical Society of North Dakota,"Archives - State Agencies - Supreme Court," accessed June 26, 2024
- ↑ South Dakota Unified Judicial System,"South Dakota Supreme Court Photographic History," accessed June 26, 2024
- ↑ South Dakota Law Review,"The South Dakota Judicial System: Past and Present," accessed June 26, 2024
- ↑ South Dakota Unified Judicial System,"South Dakota Supreme Court," accessed June 26, 2024
- ↑ South Dakota Law Review,"The South Dakota Judicial System: Past and Present," accessed June 26, 2024
- ↑ South Dakota Law Review,"The South Dakota Judicial System: Past and Present," accessed June 26, 2024
- ↑ South Dakota Law Review,"The South Dakota Judicial System: Past and Present," accessed June 26, 2024
Federal courts:
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: District of South Dakota • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: District of South Dakota
State courts:
South Dakota Supreme Court • South Dakota Circuit Courts • South Dakota Magistrate Courts
State resources:
Courts in South Dakota • South Dakota judicial elections • Judicial selection in South Dakota
| ||||||||
