## Facts

- Students attended the University of South Dakota at Springfield (USD/S), a state institution focused on vocational and technical programs, during the 1983–84 academic year.
- The Legislature enacted an emergency statute transferring control of the USD/S campus from the Board of Regents to the Board of Charities and Corrections and converting the campus to a minimum security prison, effective May 1, 1984.
- The statute permitted students to complete the 1983–84 academic year at USD/S and directed state education authorities to provide opportunities to complete courses of study in South Dakota through articulation agreements and related measures.
- Many USD/S programs were not available at other state universities; students alleged educational disruption, including relocation, program changes, and inability to continue college.
- Students sued the State and the Board of Regents (including individual members), alleging breach of contract, requests for injunctive and declaratory relief, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and constitutional provisions, and claims under South Dakota deceptive trade and consumer protection statutes.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding the students had no enforceable contract rights against the Board of Regents; the students appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether students had an enforceable contract with the Board of Regents guaranteeing completion of their programs at USD/S beyond the term for which tuition was paid.
2. Whether the campus closure and conversion under the statute deprived students of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest supporting due-process and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.
3. Whether university publications or representations supported deceptive-practices or misrepresentation claims under South Dakota consumer-protection statutes, and whether such claims were barred.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the State and the Board of Regents.
- The court held students had no enforceable contractual right to the continued operation of USD/S or to complete multi-year programs there; any student-university contract did not extend beyond the tuition-paid term.
- Because no enforceable entitlement existed, students lacked a protectable property interest in USD/S’s continued operation; therefore, due-process and § 1983 theories failed as a matter of law.
- Consumer-protection and related misrepresentation theories did not survive summary judgment, including because the relied-upon materials did not create a binding guarantee of continued institutional operation and the State’s immunity was not clearly waived.
- Applying the summary-judgment standard, the court concluded no genuine dispute of material fact existed and defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law even when plaintiffs’ evidence was viewed favorably to them.

## Legal Principles

- A student’s contractual relationship with a public educational institution generally extends only to the academic term for which tuition is paid, absent a clear and specific contrary commitment.
- A due-process property interest requires a valid entitlement grounded in an independent source such as state law or contract; a student’s expectation that a campus or program will remain available is insufficient without such an entitlement.
- Legislative reorganization or closure of state institutions, with transitional measures for affected students, does not by itself establish a constitutional deprivation actionable under § 1983.
- University catalogs, bulletins, and similar materials are typically informational and do not, without clear promissory language, create enforceable guarantees that programs or campuses will remain open.
- Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court upheld summary judgment for the State and Board of Regents, ruling that students had no enforceable contractual or due-process right to complete their programs at a particular state campus after the Legislature closed and repurposed it, and that the related constitutional, § 1983, and consumer-protection claims failed as a matter of law.


Aase v. State, S.D. Bd. of Regents, 400 N.W.2d 269 (S.D. 1987)