[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6363122,"mediaKeyId","2166699-45c49863bb253658317614bceb60af41","parentId",2166699,"title","Senate Bill 2264 would modernize marriage language in North Dakota statutes; supporters and faith groups clash in committee","audioSeconds",526,"startMs",7805000,"endMs",8331000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2166699-45c49863bb253658317614bceb60af41&start=7805&end=8331","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2166699-45c49863bb253658317614bceb60af41/thumbnail_7805000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6363122/North-Dakota/Senate-Bill-2264-would-modernize-marriage-language-in-North-Dakota-statutes-supporters-and-faith-groups-clash-in-committee","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6363122-cadae26cc56a0d344413699a97d1c38a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158013&Signature=FEQdGCzdS9pkhtuCZQUafVGNyiIMrK1~SL18L~R6g-Bo2KNDQu16k473MzLIUw1VX3luE6vo9yW0zLStLvJ1yEXQ6IHOlU4vqmh679ls570IstzlEk81~X8RDZDYpgEsL8gdIKmpXjhgnaqJr~78GTg17UhUyTHelu9-vYoYrH9gq1wjCDFDMnRPDyGPxmmA6wwMOkYfUjC5WeEio~xSzkMqSMhU8zisiSfTjvEA50Hexw56oAlIG51GGkzFrE0bDXo4vfLabiR3IlqBrDA4trPy4VKvkeHAlsPVoLh5YtFM9-VUc9aDvt6W6BLEu9iwU2XoHaZlDq4Hdc2DCB3rjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate Judiciary, ND","date","2025-01-29T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 2264, which would modernize North Dakota statutes to use gender-neutral terms for marriage and recognize unions between two consenting adults regardless of gender, drew a short hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee with clear lines between supporters and opponents.

Sen. Ryan Brownberger, sponsor of SB 2264, told the committee the bill replaces gendered terms such as \"husband\" and \"wife\" with inclusive language such as \"spouses\" or \"two individuals married to each other,\" and updates references across codes from family law to property, adoption and spousal privilege. He said the changes reflect the Respect for Marriage Act (2022) and seek consistency with modern legal practice.

Mark Georgezman of the North Dakota Family Alliance Legislative Action opposed the bill on religious and cultural grounds, urging the committee to reject language that, in his view, undermines a traditional, biblically based definition of marriage. Linda Thorson of Concerned Women for America and other faith-based speakers made similar arguments, asserting that government policy should continue to reflect a male-female marital norm.

Supporters at the hearing were limited; the sponsor emphasized statutory clarity and alignment with federal law and modern family forms. Opponents pointed to cultural and religious concerns and warned of perceived societal harms from redefining marriage in statute, though no legal analysis demonstrating immediate practical impacts was offered at the hearing.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing with no vote. The bill drew predictable support from advocates of inclusive statutory language and organized opposition from faith-based organizations and conservative groups. No committee action was recorded at the session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary Jan 29, 2025\t","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 2264 updates statutory language to use gender-neutral terms and to align state law with recent federal protections; supporters framed the change as inclusive modernization, while religious and conservative groups opposed redefining marriage's statutory language.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28907,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6363127,"Lawmakers hear split testimony on Senate Bill 2244, a broad parental-rights bill for schools and health care",3447,3897000,7344000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2166699-45c49863bb253658317614bceb60af41&start=3897&end=7344","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2166699-45c49863bb253658317614bceb60af41/thumbnail_3897000.jpg","/articles/6363127/North-Dakota/Lawmakers-hear-split-testimony-on-Senate-Bill-2244-a-broad-parental-rights-bill-for-schools-and-health-care","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6363127-c437de4865b24e707ebad8ec7c6194c9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158013&Signature=ks0KCJGKiB8nrWH0QRxMvtSrVm5HywWzRwi0AWNp979GgYXqUdi3hsnFR06eHTj95rh7g6qpWbivLpGlSF0tBnQ5JT8fHOaeyaUVHAyP55ZaGsW5eHNflpGuP3gKMg16EMhY~8~nMmP~3IEA1W4ooK1KWq8y3F3~8xtZNoC7Xmh2PPP6MgwZOf1nVWwenCUFE1V-c14aL80S1IT6Vg5ERQxMey8S-EQ-4K8BPcNQ1BEsz-rYoAca87c78-KmhxhXZWeKtRZGA~xClqCcFjT8agkOmCs87BMseMxD-Kk2aPk3PtAGn4Dti7fFLDvxIZnP2fvKbvWQXT5-kxzz7~Opvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The North Dakota Senate Judiciary Committee heard hour-long testimony on Senate Bill 2244, a measure sponsored by Sen. Bob Paulson that would codify a broad set of parental rights over a child's upbringing, education and certain health-care decisions.

Sen. Bob Paulson told the committee the bill would enshrine parents’ authority to review curricula, direct moral and religious training, consent to health care and prevent schools from withholding information that reveals a student’s transgender status, subject to narrow exceptions for abuse reporting and court orders. He asked the committee to remove an emergency clause that appeared in the draft.

Supporters included the North Dakota Family Alliance and individual parents. Jacob Thompson of the Family Alliance said the bill \"supports that parents are the final arbiters in their child's education, physical and mental health treatment, moral and religious training, and general upbringing.\" A parent who testified remotely, Kimberly Hurst, said she was charged $615.87 by a school district to review her children's curriculum and described situations where she believes schools taught material despite an opt-out.

Opponents included representatives of teachers and school boards, health-care counsel and superintendents. Mike Eierman, general counsel for North Dakota United, said the 2023 legislature already enacted a related law (House Bill 1362) and said SB 2244 reintroduces the contested term \"fundamental right\" and an attorney-fee remedy that his organization had successfully removed last session. Eierman warned the bill contains internal inconsistencies about when and how parents' rights may be limited and that restoring the phrase \"fundamental\" could invite litigation.

Amy DeCook, executive director of the North Dakota School Boards Association, noted that districts already implement parental engagement practices and said the bill's tight time frames for responding to record and curriculum requests could overburden districts. She and others opposed the indemnity and attorney-fee provisions, cautioning that the law could expose districts to more suits and that school boards would be required to pay school personnel's defense costs.

Health-care counsel raised concerns about conflicts with existing statutory exceptions that allow minors to consent to certain care or allow implied consent in emergencies. Melissa Hower of the North Dakota Hospital Association warned the bill's \"notwithstanding any other law\" language could nullify those existing statutory exceptions and create conflicting duties for providers.

Other witnesses described practical concerns: Alexander Public School Superintendent Leslie Bieber said mandatory-notification language in the bill could conflict with child-protection training that instructs reporters to notify child-protection services first when abuse is suspected; she also warned that broad opt-outs could worsen chronic absenteeism. Jordan Carpenter of Alliance Defending Freedom testified in favor and argued the measure codifies parental rights consistent with U.S. and state precedent.

Ending: The committee heard extensive, divergent testimony and did not vote on the bill at the hearing. Lawmakers asked for clarifications and signaled possible amendments, particularly around statutory conflicts, indemnity or attorney-fee language, emergency clause removal, and timing requirements for records access.","Senate Bill 2244 would codify parental rights over children's education, medical records and other areas; supporters urged passage citing parental access and transparency, opponents warned of conflicts with existing law, indemnity and litigation exposure and child-protection and attendance consequences.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6363133,"North Dakota hearing on Senate Bill 2285 pits judicial deference supporters against state agencies",2863,373000,3236000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2166699-45c49863bb253658317614bceb60af41&start=373&end=3236","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2166699-45c49863bb253658317614bceb60af41/thumbnail_373000.jpg","/articles/6363133/North-Dakota/North-Dakota-hearing-on-Senate-Bill-2285-pits-judicial-deference-supporters-against-state-agencies","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6363133-2467c23bf97ec51008466034cf78015e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158013&Signature=P-TFFg2X~4E-GFbmWvOAM3vtwLimF6AEw8Q2ZsvaRTkj3xilFOJlNLWxH32FB17QeHGPCDeTYg32gzbpVfPdkYv1EPp78CGRLez56K3fGlXf~r0H81yDOYAjqxlnE7WEXA2YQOlUGstL1YnNuDJNEMDIcJ5wRyCke~v55CUIDUXooNX8SlZvdNC7uJYt4og55w985in0qrYWXL9dqVxmyzvKYGJc1tI1oD-lj9QEbPXzccZh0Ma78Qk83SZF3m~ejvga3BHbbDV7FDD14DWMbOuztbqXOhQoaxrzDsPhrqw4L409rBZjINuMPFFAhnzZx0sRw8WiLK8oYLOnJsfDxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A North Dakota Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Senate Bill 2285 on judicial deference featured testimony from the bill sponsor, legal advocates and multiple state agencies with sharply different views.

Sen. Claire Correa, the bill's prime sponsor, told the committee SB 2285 would require judges to follow statutes rather than automatically deferring to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws. \"This is a matter of proper separation of powers,\" Correa said, adding the bill does not prevent judges from agreeing with an agency after weighing the evidence.

Supporters framed the measure as a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which limited longstanding Chevron deference. Jackie Hall, executive director of the North Dakota Association for Justice, described Loper Bright as \"an emphatic rejection of agency deference\" and said SB 2285 would align state law with that ruling and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Opponents included officials from elected and appointed regulatory bodies who warned the bill would disrupt existing, technical regulatory processes and likely increase litigation. Randy Christmann, chair of the North Dakota Public Service Commission, said many PSC decisions involve factual fact-finding and technical judgments—such as whether a utility’s investment is \"used and useful\"—that are not well-suited to purely judicial inquiry. \"The courts don't do that kind of investigation,\" Christmann said, noting the PSC’s public hearing processes and federal audit relationships under programs such as SMCRA and PHMSA.

Johannes Pauls Graff, general counsel for the North Dakota Insurance Department, and Nathan Anderson, director of the Department of Mineral Resources, made similar points about the insurance and oil-and-gas contexts. Anderson said agency staff often include engineers and geoscientists whose technical expertise helps the agencies craft and enforce rules that suit North Dakota’s unique circumstances.

Several witnesses urged caution or amendment. Christmann and Graff suggested carving elected constitutional officers out of the bill; Christmann said he would remove his opposition if elected agencies were exempted. Brad Peterson of Protection Advocacy noted a related case pending before the North Dakota Supreme Court, Nathan Zant v. Department of Human Services (2024 N.D. 0222), and asked the committee to consider that decision's potential guidance.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about legislative intent, the role of administrative rules, and whether the bill would prevent courts from considering legislative history. Correa and witnesses said courts already consider intent where appropriate and that SB 2285 aims to ensure the statute governs rather than an agency’s separate regulation.

The hearing closed without a committee vote and committee members took a recess. No formal amendments or votes on the bill were recorded at the hearing.

Ending: The hearing recorded strong disagreements about whether a statutory change is needed in North Dakota. Supporters framed SB 2285 as restoring courts’ interpretive role after Loper Bright; agency witnesses warned of technical harms and urged either rejection or a carve-out for elected agencies. The committee did not act on the bill at the hearing.","Senate Bill 2285 would limit judicial deference to agency statutory interpretations; supporters say it restores separation of powers after the U.S. Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision, while state regulators and elected commissioners warn it could hamper technical oversight and invite litigation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate Bill 2264 would modernize marriage language in North Dakota statutes; supporters and faith groups clash in committee

Lawmakers hear split testimony on Senate Bill 2244, a broad parental-rights bill for schools and health care

North Dakota hearing on Senate Bill 2285 pits judicial deference supporters against state agencies