The North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Ronald Eugene Rousseau against Governor Kelly Armstrong and several state military officials, ruling that the plaintiff lacked the right to appeal without a final judgment or order.
The case, *Rousseau v. Armstrong* (2026 ND 31), centered on Rousseau's attempt to halt Withdrawal of Federal Recognition proceedings initiated against him by the North Dakota National Guard. The court's dismissal establishes important precedent regarding appellate jurisdiction and the finality requirement for appeals in North Dakota.
On July 3, 2025, Rousseau filed a verified petition for temporary restraining order and injunctive relief in the District Court of Burleigh County. The petition named several defendants, including Governor Kelly Armstrong, Brigadier General Mitchell R. Johnson of the North Dakota National Guard, Colonel Kevin H. Miller, and the North Dakota Department of Veterans Affairs.
Rousseau sought to prevent the North Dakota National Guard from proceeding with WOFR proceedings against him until a related habeas corpus case involving him was fully adjudicated in a South Dakota federal district court. The petition was personally delivered to the Governor's office, the National Guard office, and the North Dakota Department of Veterans Affairs.
The district court, presided over by the Honorable Pamela A. Nesvig, granted the state's motion to dismiss after concluding it lacked both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. This dismissal prompted Rousseau's appeal to the state's highest court.
However, the North Dakota Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Jensen, dismissed the appeal after reviewing its own jurisdiction sua sponte. The court determined that under North Dakota Century Code Section 28-27-01, a party does not have a right to appeal without a final judgment or order.
The court's syllabus establishes two key legal principles. First, it confirms that appellate rights are contingent upon the existence of a final judgment or order as defined by state statute. Second, it clarifies that dismissals for lack of personal jurisdiction are presumed to be without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff could potentially refile the case in an appropriate forum.
This ruling reinforces the fundamental requirement of finality in appellate jurisdiction. Under North Dakota law, courts of appeal can only review final judgments and orders, not preliminary or interlocutory rulings. The dismissal for jurisdictional reasons did not constitute a final judgment on the merits of Rousseau's claims.
The case highlights the complex jurisdictional issues that can arise when military personnel challenge administrative actions taken by state National Guard units. The Withdrawal of Federal Recognition process involves both state and federal military authorities, creating potential conflicts over which courts have proper jurisdiction to hear related disputes.
Rousseau, representing himself in the proceedings, submitted his appeal on brief without oral argument. The state was represented by Assistant Attorney General Courtney R. Titus, who also submitted the case on brief.
The dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction suggests the district court determined it could not exercise authority over some or all of the named defendants. Personal jurisdiction requires that a court have legal authority over the parties to a lawsuit, typically based on their residence, business activities, or connection to the state where the court sits.
The subject matter jurisdiction issue indicates the court also questioned whether it had authority to hear this type of case at all. Subject matter jurisdiction concerns a court's power to hear certain types of disputes, regardless of who the parties are.
The North Dakota Supreme Court's decision to review its own jurisdiction sua sponte demonstrates the court's obligation to ensure it has proper authority to hear cases, even when the parties do not raise jurisdictional challenges. This self-policing mechanism helps maintain the integrity of the appellate system.
For practitioners, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding finality requirements before filing appeals. The decision reinforces that not every adverse ruling can be immediately appealed, particularly when jurisdictional dismissals leave substantive issues unresolved.
The ruling also illustrates the procedural complexity involved in cases touching on both state and federal military authority. The underlying WOFR proceedings and the related South Dakota habeas corpus case suggest a multi-jurisdictional dispute that may require resolution in multiple forums.
While the North Dakota Supreme Court's dismissal ends this particular appeal, the underlying issues remain unresolved. The dismissal without prejudice means Rousseau could potentially pursue his claims in a court with proper jurisdiction, though the success of any future litigation would depend on addressing the jurisdictional defects identified by the district court.
The case number 20250336 reflects the court's 2025 docket, and the 2026 ND 31 citation indicates this was the 31st published opinion from the North Dakota Supreme Court in 2026. This timing suggests the appeal was processed relatively quickly through the state's appellate system.