State v. Anderson, 977 N.W.2d 736

In 2019 Richard Anderson pled guilty to corruption of a minor, luring a minor by computer, and sexual assault; he was sentenced to five years with two years suspended and five years of supervised probation.
The judgment included a probation condition prohibiting any subscription to, access to, or use of the internet unless approved in writing by a parole/probation officer (based on N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(4)(r)).
In October 2021 Anderson (then incarcerated) moved to challenge the constitutionality of the statute and related probation conditions, asserting First Amendment and other constitutional violations and seeking modification of his probation terms.
The State and Attorney General opposed. The district court denied relief, finding Anderson remained incarcerated, was not yet on probation, and his claims depended on speculative future actions by parole/probation officers (not ripe); the court also found Anderson’s facial challenge inadequately briefed.
Anderson appealed. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding his as-applied challenge was not ripe and declining to address the facial challenge because it was not thoroughly briefed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ripeness of as‑applied constitutional challenge to § 12.1‑32‑07(4)(r) / internet restriction	The State: challenge is premature because Anderson was incarcerated and not subject to probation conditions; relief would be advisory.	Anderson: the statute and probation condition infringe his First Amendment rights and, upon release, will impede education and employment.	Court: Not ripe — Anderson was not on probation and alleged harm was speculative; court will not issue an advisory ruling.
Facial constitutional challenge to § 12.1‑32‑07(4)(r)	The State: statute is presumptively constitutional and no adequate record supports a facial invalidation.	Anderson: statute is unconstitutional on its face (broadly restricts internet access).	Court: Declined to address on appeal because Anderson failed to adequately brief or develop the facial challenge.

Teigen v. State, 2008 ND 88, 749 N.W.2d 505 (standard of review and presumption of constitutionality for statutes)
Sorum v. State, 2020 ND 175, 947 N.W.2d 382 (distinguishing facial and as‑applied challenges)
Hoff v. Berg, 1999 ND 115, 595 N.W.2d 285 (facial invalidation treats statute as if never enacted)
State v. Morris, 331 N.W.2d 48 (N.D. 1983) (definition and application of as‑applied challenges)
In re C.W., 453 N.W.2d 806 (N.D. 1990) (mere potential impairment of rights does not create justiciable controversy)
Communist Party v. Control Bd., 367 U.S. 1 (1960) (ripeness and avoidance of advisory opinions)
Sprunk v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau, 1998 ND 93, 576 N.W.2d 861 (issue not ripe if it depends on uncertain future contingencies)
State v. Peltier, 2016 ND 75, 878 N.W.2d 68 (requirement that constitutional attacks be adequately briefed and supported)