# Judge upholds ND anti-corporate farming law



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Judge upholds ND anti-corporate farming law*
BISMARCK - North Dakota's anti-corporate farming law does not violate the U.S. Constitution, even though similar laws have been invalidated by federal courts in Nebraska and South Dakota, a state district judge says. 
By: Associated Press, Associated Press

BISMARCK - North Dakota's anti-corporate farming law does not violate the U.S. Constitution, even though similar laws have been invalidated by federal courts in Nebraska and South Dakota, a state district judge says.

Southeast District Judge James Bekken's ruling also gave a partial victory to Crosslands Inc., a nonprofit organization that owns land in three North Dakota counties, saying the state law cannot be used to force the sale of about 1,700 acres managed as a wildlife preserve.

Crosslands will have to divest itself of about 900 acres of land by Feb. 1, Bekken's ruling says. It will not have to sell 320 acres in Ward County that was donated to Crosslands rather than purchased. The nonprofit may also retain about 528 acres in Griggs County because it is made up of wetlands or property needed to support wetlands management, the ruling says.

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem sued Crosslands, which was founded by Minneapolis precious metals dealer James Cook, in January 2005. Stenehjem contended Crosslands had acquired the land without following the North Dakota law that requires the governor to approve purchases of farm or ranch land by nonprofit groups.

Crosslands argued that Hoeven's decision was arbitrary, and said the law that restricted Crosslands' ability to buy land ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution's protections for interstate commerce. Bekken rejected those arguments.

Bekken's decision is likely to be appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Step one is done, on to step two for Cook. Interesting twist on divesting only some purchases........thanks for posting up Bob. The AG had no choice but the Governor sure did.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

And a follow up. Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem did an interview with PPR tonight on this case. He said the decision does not bode well for the state's position since wetland ground will be excluded from the corporate law. Ag land would comply with the law under the decision. Stenehjem said both sides will probably appeal to the state supreme court.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Uh ohhhhh

Cutting of their nose to spite their face they are...

It will open up a whole new era after it gets struck down by a higher court..


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Judge upholds N.D. anti-corporate farming law*

By DALE WETZEL 
Associated Press Writer 
A nonprofit foundation that owns more than 1,700 acres of wildlife habitat in three North Dakota counties is not required to sell all its land to obey the state's anti-corporate farming law, a judge has ruled.

Southeast District Judge James Bekken says the state law does not apply to 848 acres of Crosslands Inc. property in Ward and Griggs counties because the property was donated, unusable for farming or ranching, or necessary to support the management of nearby wetlands.

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said Monday the ruling could open a new loophole in North Dakota's anti-corporate farming law. The attorney general said he is reviewing the decision before deciding whether to appeal.

Crosslands wanted to keep all its 1,749 acres, contending that North Dakota's anti-corporate farming law violated the U.S. Constitution's protections for interstate commerce.

Bekken rejected those arguments, concluding the law has significant differences when compared to laws against corporate farming in South Dakota and Nebraska that have been declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.

"The court agrees with the state's analysis that North Dakota's prohibition on corporate land ownership is essentially all-encompassing, not selective, and not discriminatory," Bekken wrote in his 35-page decision.

C. Nicholas Vogel, a Fargo attorney for Crosslands, said he doubted the ruling would be appealed. James Cook, a Minneapolis precious metals dealer who founded Crosslands more than 20 years ago, did not respond Monday to requests for comment.

In general, the law prohibits corporations from owning or leasing agricultural land, or going into the business of farming or ranching. It has exemptions for family-controlled corporations.

The law allows nonprofit organizations to buy agricultural land to preserve natural areas or wildlife habitat. Acquisitions go through a review process that include the local county commission and a state review board. Any purchases must be approved by the governor.

Crosslands acquired 320 acres in Ward County in 1985, court records show. The organization subsequently bought 949 acres in Griggs County and 480 acres in Cavalier County, with the intent of managing the property as private wildlife preserves.

Crosslands acquired the property without going through the normal review process. When the organization retroactively applied for approval of the Griggs and Cavalier County purchases, Gov. John Hoeven rejected both.

Stenehjem sued Crosslands in January 2005, seeking to force the nonprofit to sell its land. Bekken's ruling, which was issued last week, concluded Crosslands could keep its 320 Ward County acres and 528 of its 949 acres in Griggs County. The remaining 901 acres must be sold by Feb. 1, the judge's order says.

The Ward County land was donated to Crosslands, and thus was not subject to the law's review process, Bekken concluded. The 528 acres of Griggs County land included 267 acres of wetlands and 261 acres of adjacent property that Crosslands could justify keeping to support wetlands management, the judge concluded.

Stenehjem had argued Crosslands had no right to keep the 261 Griggs County acres without the governor's approval. That part of Bekken's ruling "is a problem," Stenehjem said. "It may open up a rather wide hole in our anti-corporate farming statute."


----------

