The North Dakota Supreme Court convened on September 23, 2025, to hear oral arguments in a significant case concerning the constitutionality of a terrorizing statute and the application of the overbreadth doctrine. The discussions focused on two main legal issues: the void for vagueness claim and the overbreadth claim raised by the appellant, Mr. King.

The session began with the court examining the first prong of the obvious error standard. Counsel for the state argued that if the court were to determine an error, it would be advisory due to the absence of controlling precedent. The discussion highlighted the procedural complexities of addressing the merits of the case versus the possibility of resolving it based on the second prong of the obvious error analysis.

Counsel noted that there is no established case law supporting the argument that the terrorizing statute is unconstitutionally vague. They asserted that Mr. King had not cited any relevant case law, and thus, the void for vagueness argument did not meet the necessary criteria for establishing obvious error. The state maintained that the court could affirm the lower court's decision based on this reasoning.

The conversation then shifted to Mr. King's overbreadth claim. The state contended that this claim was not raised in the lower court, limiting the Supreme Court's review to whether there was an obvious error. Counsel pointed out that overbreadth is traditionally associated with First Amendment cases and argued that applying it to the Second Amendment context would be a novel approach without precedent. They concluded that Mr. King could not demonstrate a clear deviation from established rules regarding overbreadth.

In summary, the state argued that neither the void for vagueness nor the overbreadth claims constituted error. They requested that the court affirm the criminal judgment against Mr. King. The session concluded with Mr. King's counsel reserving time for rebuttal, clarifying that their challenge was not a facial one against the terrorizing statute but rather focused on its application. The court's deliberations on these critical constitutional issues will have implications for future interpretations of statutory vagueness and overbreadth in North Dakota.