In a remarkable display of judicial independence, a Rhoden-appointed judge has thrown a spanner in the works of a Rhoden-anointed economic development project.
In February, Smithfield Foods announced its plan to move its stinky slaughterhouse operations from its longtime location in Sioux Falls to Foundation Park north of the city in Foundation Park near Crooks and the I-29/I-90 intersection. Governor Larry Rhoden helped swing the deal by giving the Chinese meatpacker $12 million. But in April, some neighboring Crooks landowners sued the city of Sioux Falls, contending through rightwing anti-GOP-establishment lawyer Steven Haugaard that the city didn’t follow the rules for issuing the conditional use permit for the new Smithfiield plant that, the landowners said, would ruin their property values.
On Thursday, Second Circuit Judge Ann Hoffman ruled in favor of those landowners, hitting pause on the Smithfield move:
Hoffman granted the plaintiffs’ petition, which nullifies the City Council’s decision to grant the permit to Smithfield. To grant a writ of certiorari, plaintiffs must prove that the city acted with “irregular authority” or outside of its jurisdiction.
The conditional use permit is now voided and “remanded and reversed” to the Sioux Falls City Council, which will have to reconsider Smithfield’s application.
…Hoffman ruled that the City Council failed to comply with the city’s own ordinances as well as the Sioux Falls 2050 strategic plan in approving the CUP.
She noted that Smithfield’s permit application for the site was only a single-page document and did not fulfill several city requirements for conditional use permit approval.
That included a mandatory “neighborhood meeting to gain input about methods to transition the business from the adjacent residential home,” building designs that display measures to prevent water issues and a report from the fire department that outlined issues or concerns with the site.
“For fire, water, zoning, light and power, the Staff Report simply stated, ‘Provided a review of all available information and did not have any concerns or comments to add.’ However, there is no ‘report from the fire department regarding any building standards that must be met or other concerns the fire department has regarding the use,'” Hoffman wrote.
Nor was there a “report from the city water and water reclamation departments to determine the impact of the development on city utilities” or “a site management plan outlining litter, odor, and product control measures to be approved by the planning and health departments.”
“The 2050 Plan states that a heavy industrial use next to a residential use is highly incompatible and that “(in) general, proposed use with this level of conflict should not be permitted,” Hoffman wrote.
“This is not a complete ban on a heavy industrial use being next to a residential use. The incompatibility of the two uses requires mitigation to minimize the impact of a heavy industrial use upon a residential use.”
That mitigation was not outlined because the City Council didn’t require the minimum requirements of both city zoning ordinances and the 2050 Shape Sioux Falls Comprehensive Plan in approving the conditional use permit, Hoffman wrote [Molly Wetsch, “Judge Sends Smithfield Conditional Use Permit Back to City,” South Dakota News Watch, 2026.10.02].
Just five days ago in a debate with gubernatorial candidate Dan Ahlers, Governor Rhoden invoked the Smithfield move to counter the suggestion that his administration isn’t helping agriculture. But now Judge Hoffman, whom Rhoden appointed Hoffman to the Second Circuit in September 2025, has stalled that move… or more accurately, the Sioux Falls City Council has fumbled that move by rushing to approve this state-subsidized favor to a Chinese corporation without following proper procedure and respecting landowner rights.
Judge Hoffman didn’t give the plaintiffs a total victory. The ruling voids the conditional use permit but does nothing to stop the city from revisiting the CUP and reissuing it after following all the rules it broke the first time. Judge Hoffman takes no position on the merits of the slaughterhouse project itself; those merits are to be determined in the process that the city had better follow this time around. Judge Hoffman outright rejected the big anti-establishment swing Haugaard and co-counsel A.J. Swanson took in alleging that the city council was biased by financial interests and “an overtly coordinated effort” by the city, state, and Smithfield to move slaughterhouse operations to the new site:
There is no evidence that any member of the City Council stood to financially benefit from the approval of Smithfield’s CUP. There is no evidence that various levels of government entities working together on a large-scale economic project resulted in bias toward Petitioners. The Court finds that Petitioners have failed to show that there was a direct pecuniary interest, actual bias, or a serious risk of actual bias such that their due process rights were violated [Judge Ann M. Hoffman, Memorandum Order and Opinion, Burgraff, Guthrie, et al. v. Sioux Falls City Council and Sioux Falls Development Foundation, Second Judicial Circuit, 2026.10.01, p. 19].
The plaintiffs are fortunate that Judge Hoffman is sharp enough to see past Haugaard’s distracting conspiracy-theorizing and focus on the plain facts of law in this case that will keep Smithfield from moving, at least for a few months. They are also fortunate to have at least one judge in the Second Circuit who can look past the political desires of a Governor who put her in on the bench and rule objectively against a rushed economic development move that that Governor wants to use as a prop in his reëlection campaign.
Not in a Crooks backyard.