Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].
Noting that opponents focused on the breadth of the proposed rule and its impact on free speech and the free exercise of religion, a unanimous South Dakota Supreme Court rejected the proposed rule, stating that the “Court is not convinced that proposed Rule 8.4(g) is necessary or remedies an identified problem.” Though this proposed rule attempted to remedy the defects apparent in the ABA’s “pure” version of the rule, the amended rule still manifested fatal constitutional concerns.
