On April 20, 2010, the Minnesota Court of Appeals published a decision which will lead to Minnesota's public schools being required to comply with Minnesota's Campaign Financial Reports Act and Fair Campaign Practices Act.

The published decision affirmed the Office of Administrative Hearing's dismissal of the complaint on technical grounds.  However, the Court of Appeals opinion holds that a school district or a school board may be a "committee" for purposes of Minnesota's campaign laws if it has "acted to promote or defeat a ballot question."

Attorney Erick Kaardal responds, "Good government requires change over the short term and long term.  We thank the Minnesota Court of Appeals for recognizing today in a published decision that public schools and schools board are subject to Minnesota's campaign laws when they act to promote or defeat a ballot question.  Although my clients are disappointed that the Court dismissed their claim, they are looking forward to seeing the law enforced in the future based on the Court of Appeals' decision published today."

The Star Tribune's front page covered the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of the petition for writ of certiorari in the case Wolfchild, et al. v. United States.  The article written by Kevin Diaz can be found here. 

Attorney Erick Kaardal comments, "My clients are very encouraged by the media coverage and interest in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear the Wolfchild case.  Since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in the decision which we were appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, actually remanded the case for further proceedings in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, we will continue the litigation there.  We are very confident that the Department of the Interior's policies will get further review in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims."

On April 19, 2010, the United States Supreme Court denied the Mdewakanton Dakota Oyate's petition for discretionary review.

Attorney Erick Kaardal comments, "We are disappointed with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision.  However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did remand the case for further proceedings to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  My clients will now pursue our remedies against the United States there."

Scotus Blog, the # 1 website covering the U.S. Supreme Court, has identified the Wolfchild case as a petition with a reasonable chance of being granted at the April 16, 2010 private conference of the Supreme Court of the United States.  The cite to the Wolfchild petition can be found here.

Attorney Erick Kaardal responds, "We are pleased with the Scotus Blog citation.  It shows that our case is worthy for U.S. Supreme Court review."

Customarily, the U.S. Supreme Court issues an order disposing of petitions on the Monday following the Friday's private conference. So, the order is expected on Monday, April 19th.

The Pioneer Press covered the March 24, 2010 hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Donovon Frank on the Muslim students' motion to intervene in the Minnesota ACLU lawsuit against Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy.  The article can be found here.

Erick Kaardal, who represents the students and parents, comments, "My clients, many of whom are immigrants, are appreciative of the United States District Court and its hearing yesterday.  After the hearing, we discussed how wonderful America is that even immigrants can be heard in a federal court case.  My clients and I have confidence that the Court will review the arguments and make its decision in a good way." 

On March 16, 2010, the Solicitor General of the United States filed her response to the Wolfchild petition for review in the U.S. Supreme Court.  The petition can be found here.

On March 15, 2010, the Solicitor General of the United States will file her response to the Minnesota Mdewakanton Dakota Oyate petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

The United States Supreme Court previously had ordered all respondents, including the Solicitor General to respond.

Erick Kaardal, attorney for the Minnesota Mdewakanton Dakota Oyate, states, "My 7,500 Mdewakanton clients and I look forward to receiving the Solicitor General's response.  We started this lawsuit in 2003.  After 7 years of litigation and conflicting lower court opinions, we hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the case worthy of review."

The Pioneer Press covered the motion to intervene brought by 10 Muslim students and their parents filed in the U.S. District Court.  They seek to participate in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy and other governmental defendants.

The article can be found here.

Erick Kaardal, attorney for the Muslims, states, "I appreciate the press coverage of the filing of this very important motion.  My clients and I look forward to making our arguments in the U.S. District Court."

On March 10, 2010, ten Muslim students and four of their parents brought a motion to intervene in the ACLU case against Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy. 

The filing of the motion was covered by the Startribune here.

Erick Kaardal, attorney for the Muslim applicants for intervention states, "The ACLU lawsuit is about the accommodations at TiZA made for Muslim students.  My clients have democratically and legally obtained these accomodations:  pork-alternative proteins at lunch; two Islamic holidays off the school calendar; student-led prayer on Islamic Sabbath of Friday; and a conservative (but not Islamic) dress code.  The ACLU admits none of these accommodations alone are unconstitutional.  Instead, the ACLU argues the school is 'pervasively sectarian.'  This ACLU argument is pointed at the Muslim-ness of the students.  My clients need to intervene in the case to protect their democratically and legally obtained accommodations.  We look forward to legal arguments in the U.S. District Court."

On March 10, 2010, ten Muslim students and four of the their parents brought a motion to intervene in the ACLU case against Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy. 

The filing of the motion was covered by the Startribune here.

Erick Kaardal, attorney for the Muslim applicants for intervention states, "The ACLU lawsuit is about the accommodations at TiZA made for Muslim students.  My clients have democratically and legally obtained these accomodations:  pork-alternative proteins at lunch; two Islamic holidays off the school calendar; student-led prayer on Islamic Sabbath of Friday; and a conservative (but not Islamic) dress code.  The ACLU admits none of these accommodations alone are unconstitutional.  Instead, the ACLU argues the school is 'pervasively sectarian.'  This ACLU argument is pointed at the Muslim-ness of the students.  My clients need to intervene in the case to protect their democratically and legally obtained accommodations.  We look forward to legal arguments in the U.S. District Court."