AN ACT to create and enact a new section to chapter 15-11 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the establishment of the immigration law clinic at the university of North Dakota school of law; to provide for a report; and to provide an appropriation.
Summary
HB 1600 creates a new immigration law clinic at the University of North Dakota School of Law. The bill requires the law school to employ one full-time staff attorney for the clinic, limits that attorney to no more than 60 open matters at a time, and allows legal services and related work to be performed remotely when appropriate to client needs. It also authorizes the clinic to charge nominal fees to help cover operating costs.
The bill further directs UND Law to prepare a report for the 70th Legislative Assembly on the clinic’s operations, including its effect on the law school, fee sustainability, student participation, client demand, geographic reach, work performed, obstacles, and any future legislative needs. To fund the clinic, the bill appropriates $400,000 from the state’s strategic investment and improvements fund to the Office of Management and Budget for a one-time grant to UND for the 2025-2027 biennium.
Impact
HB 1600 adds a new section to North Dakota Century Code chapter 15-11 and creates a state-supported immigration law clinic at UND Law. It establishes staffing and caseload requirements, permits remote service delivery, and authorizes nominal client fees, while also creating a reporting obligation to the legislature. The bill appropriates one-time funding of $400,000 from the strategic investment and improvements fund, affecting state spending and directing those funds through OMB to the university.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received majority support in both chambers, passing the House and Senate on second reading with clear margins. The vote totals suggest generally favorable sentiment toward establishing and funding the clinic, though the nontrivial number of nays in both chambers indicates meaningful opposition. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows support through final passage but not detailed debate positions.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on whether state funds should support an immigration-focused legal clinic and whether the university should be involved in providing those services. Opponents may have questioned the use of the strategic investment and improvements fund for this purpose, the policy implications of immigration legal assistance, or the need for a new clinic at the law school. Supporters likely emphasized legal training opportunities, service to clients and employers, and the clinic’s potential to address unmet legal needs in the state.