The North Dakota Supreme Court took oral argument in File No. 20250060 on whether a juvenile adjudicated in June 2024 must register as a sex offender under North Dakota law.

In the argument session, Britta Joyce, an assistant state's attorney for Burley County representing the appellant, asked the court to reverse and remand the juvenile court's February 2025 order that declined to impose a registration requirement. Joyce said the juvenile (identified in court as KIB) admitted allegations in a June 2024 petition charging offenses under chapter 12.1-27.2 and therefore met the statutory definition in North Dakota Century Code § 12.1-32-15(1)(g) of a registerable offender. "We would be looking at we're asking the court to reverse and remand for reconsideration of the registration requirement under the old law at the time," Joyce said, arguing the statute was not ambiguous and must be applied as written.

Kiara Krausspar, counsel for the appellee, argued the state's appeal may be jurisdictionally barred because the registration requirement, she said, is a largely administrative function of DOCR and the state is not an "aggrieved party" entitled to appeal a juvenile disposition. "If it's administrative, then they ... aren't an aggrieved party, and they have no real reason to be appealing this," Krausspar told the court. Krausspar also urged deference to the juvenile court's use of the least-restrictive alternative and said the court could interpret any statutory ambiguity in a manner that favors the juvenile.

Both sides discussed which version of the registration statute governs. Joyce said the registration duty was triggered in June 2024 and the court should apply the law in effect at that time; she noted a version of the registration statute became effective in September 2022. Krausspar responded that recent North Dakota precedent (counsel referenced State v. Berkeley) and legislative history support allowing juvenile courts discretion to deviate from registration in some categories of juvenile cases and that juvenile adjudications are governed by rehabilitative principles and the least-restrictive means.

The arguments also addressed the proper interpretive tools if the court finds the statute ambiguous. Joyce urged reliance on the statute's plain language and legislative history to show that the deviation provision in the statute applies only to the specific offenses listed in subsection C. Krausspar said the statute can reasonably be read in more than one way, and when multiple reasonable readings exist courts should favor outcomes protective of juveniles and the juvenile court's discretion.

Krausspar additionally raised an appellate-standing argument tied to whether registration is punitive or administrative: if registration is punitive, the state may be an aggrieved party entitled to appeal; if it is administrative, DOCR would be the agency with a direct interest in challenging a disposition. "If it is punishment, then are you agreeing then the state could appeal?" a justice asked; Krausspar answered, "Yes," clarifying the party-entitlement issue turns on how the court classifies registration.

The court did not announce a decision. The justices present were Daniel Crothers, Lisa Fair McEvers, Jared Tufte, Douglas Barr and John Jensen. The court took the case under advisement and adjourned the session until September 8 at 9:30 a.m.

Background and procedural details: The case was filed as File No. 20250060. Counsel stated the juvenile admitted to allegations in a June 2024 petition and that a contested adjudication hearing occurred in January; the juvenile court's order denying registration issued in February 2025. Counsel noted the version of the registration statute effective September 2022 is implicated by the parties' timing arguments. Counsel reserved 10 minutes for rebuttal during oral argument.

Next steps: The court will issue a decision after internal deliberation. Any opinion will resolve whether the juvenile court erred as a matter of law in declining to require registration and whether the state has standing to appeal that disposition.