Yard signs are already sprouting along State Street in Bismarck and University Avenue in Grand Forks when former state Rep. Brandon Prichard filed a federal lawsuit this week, asking a judge to block North Dakota’s law that criminalizes “false or misleading” political ads. He argues the statute violates the First Amendment and chills the kind of hard-edged campaigning North Dakotans see every cycle.
Prichard, who represented a Bismarck district in the Legislature, is challenging a section of the state’s elections code that makes it a class A misdemeanor to “knowingly or recklessly” publish false statements in campaign advertising. Under North Dakota law, a class A misdemeanor is the most serious misdemeanor category. The complaint asks the U.S. District Court for North Dakota to stop enforcement while the case proceeds, a move that could affect messaging in local races from Bismarck city offices to UND student government contests. The law is part of the North Dakota Century Code’s elections chapter (Title 16.1), which regulates campaign practices and advertising standards, according to the North Dakota Legislature’s code archive.
Why North Dakota’s law is under scrutiny now
North Dakota has long regulated deceptive campaign practices in Title 16.1 of the Century Code, an approach supporters say helps voters sort truth from spin. Lawmakers framed the provisions to deter intentionally false attacks in the closing days of tight races. The Attorney General and local state’s attorneys have authority to enforce criminal statutes, while the Secretary of State oversees election administration more broadly.
But similar laws have fared poorly in federal courts. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to pre-enforcement challenges to these statutes in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, emphasizing the chill that threat of prosecution can impose on political speech, according to SCOTUSblog’s case page. The Eighth Circuit—whose decisions bind North Dakota—later struck down Minnesota’s false-campaign-speech law as unconstitutional, concluding it wasn’t narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. Those rulings don’t automatically decide North Dakota’s case, but they set a high bar for any state trying to police campaign truthfulness.
Legal scholars at the UND School of Law note that criminal enforcement of political claims is especially fraught because campaigns often blend opinion, hyperbole, and disputed facts. Courts tend to favor civil remedies—like libel suits—over criminal penalties when refereeing political speech, a pattern that could influence how a North Dakota judge views Prichard’s claims.
What Prichard argues—and who might agree
Prichard’s filing frames the statute as overly broad and vague, targeting core political speech at the heart of what the First Amendment protects. By punishing statements made “recklessly,” he argues, the law invites after-the-fact judgments about political rhetoric that campaigns cannot reliably predict. He also contends the threat of a criminal record and potential jail time will deter advocacy groups and candidates from speaking freely during the most heated final weeks of a race.
Free-speech advocates have long criticized false-ad bans on similar grounds, saying voters—not prosecutors—should decide which claims to credit. While Prichard filed as an individual plaintiff, organizations from across the political spectrum have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in comparable cases in other states, arguing that government truth-squads in elections can entangle officials in viewpoint disputes. Whether such groups join this North Dakota case remains to be seen.
How Bismarck and Grand Forks voters could feel the impact
For campaigns in Bismarck, the law’s uncertainty can translate into practical choices: more legal vetting of mailers, careful sourcing on claims leveled in debates, and a cautious approach to last-minute ads. The same is true on the UND campus and across Grand Forks, where student groups and local candidates rely on social media and low-budget flyers that may blur lines between fact, opinion, and sarcasm. Even when prosecutions are rare, the risk alone can shape strategy.
If you encounter a political ad you believe violates state law, election complaints typically start with election officials and, for criminal matters, are referred to law enforcement or a state’s attorney. Voters can find election guidance through the North Dakota Secretary of State’s Elections Division at sos.nd.gov/elections. Grand Forks County provides local election resources and contacts on its elections page. Campaigns seeking compliance help should consult counsel and review the North Dakota Century Code’s elections chapter, which outlines disclaimers and prohibited practices.
What this means for political advertising rules
If the court issues a preliminary injunction, prosecutors would be barred from enforcing the false-ad provision while the case proceeds, easing immediate pressure on campaigns planning 2026 messaging. A final ruling striking down the statute would push North Dakota toward civil, not criminal, routes for addressing misleading claims—placing more weight on counterspeech, media fact checks, and defamation law.
If the state prevails, lawmakers or the Attorney General could still consider guidance narrowing how the law is applied to avoid policing opinion and rhetorical hyperbole. Either way, candidates in Bismarck and Grand Forks should expect more meticulous sourcing in ads and quicker rebuttals as a practical hedge against legal risk and voter backlash.
The larger free-speech debate
At its core, the case mirrors a national question: Who decides truth in politics—the state, the courts, or voters at the polls? North Dakota’s answer will shape not only the tone of local campaigns but also how student groups, veterans’ organizations near the Grand Forks Air Force Base, and neighborhood associations advocate on issues, from property taxes to campus funding. However the court rules, expect more emphasis on transparency, documentation, and rapid response over the next election cycle.
What to Watch
The federal court will first consider whether to grant a preliminary injunction; a hearing date and briefing schedule are expected in the coming weeks. Watch for potential friend-of-the-court briefs and any enforcement guidance from the Attorney General that could signal how the state plans to defend the statute while the lawsuit proceeds.
