[¶40.] "This [C]ourt assumes that statutes mean what they say and that legislators have said what they meant." Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Dolly , 2018 S.D. 28, ¶ 9, 910 N.W.2d 196, 199 (quoting In rePetition of Famous Brands, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 882, 885 (S.D. 1984) ). "When the language in a statute is clear, certain[,] and unambiguous, there is no reason for construction, and the Court's only function is to declare the meaning of the statute as clearly expressed." Id., 910 N.W.2d at 200 (quoting Rowley v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles , 2013 S.D. 6, ¶ 7, 826 N.W.2d 360, 363-64 ).

In so doing, we note the South Dakota Supreme Court has made clear that "[t]he general rule against contracts in restraint of a lawful profession, trade, or business is a legislative expression of public policy." Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Dolly, 910 N.W.2d 196, 201 (S.D. 2018). South Dakota law provides: "Any contract restraining exercise of a lawful profession, trade, or business is void to that extent, except as provided by §§ 53-9-9 to 53-9-12, inclusive."

Thus, it is not unreasonable that Miller be restricted from doing business with those clients for a defined period after leaving HKFS. Miller relies on Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Dolly, 910 N.W.2d 196, 200 (S.D. 2018) for her assertion that South Dakota law does not permit restrictive covenants that prohibit acceptance of business. Docket 18 at 15-16.

"When interpreting a statute, we begin with the plain language and structure of the statute." Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Dolly, 2018 S.D. 28, ¶ 9, 910 N.W.2d 196, 199-200 (quoting Magellan Pipeline Co., LP v. South Dakota Dep't of Revenue & Reg., 2013 S.D. 68, ¶ 9, 837 N.W.2d 402, 404). "When the language in a statute is clear, certain[,] and unambiguous, there is no reason for construction, and the Court's only function is to declare the meaning of the statute as clearly expressed."

Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Dolly, 2018 S.D. 28, ¶ 9, 910 N.W.2d 196, 199 (alteration in original) (quoting In re Petition of Famous Brands, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 882, 885 (S.D. 1984)). "[R]esorting to legislative history is justified only when legislation is ambiguous."

"When the language in a statute is clear, certain, and unambiguous, there is no reason for construction, and the Court's only function is to declare the meaning of the statute as clearly expressed." Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Dolly , 2018 S.D. 28, ¶ 9, 910 N.W.2d 196, 200. The relationships a public officer has with others may create concerns about his or her ability to be fair and unbiased, but it is for the Legislature, not this Court, to decide whether such relationships provide a ground for disqualification under the statute.

However, an ambiguity exists "where the literal meaning of a statute leads to an absurd or unreasonable conclusion ... or when a statute is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in either of two or more senses." Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Dolly , 2018 S.D. 28, ¶ 9, 910 N.W.2d 196, 200 (quotations omitted). Neither of these conditions existed under the plain language of these statutes prior to the 2019 amendment to SDCL 24-15A-32. The decision by the Legislature to add language to the statute does not change our reading of the statute as it existed prior to the amendment.

And the parties made these drafting decisions knowing South Dakota law expressly provides non-competition provisions cannot exceed "two years from the date of termination of the agreement[,]" South Dakota Codified Laws § 53-9-11 (emphasis added), and that "exceptions [to the statute] 'must be construed narrowly so as to promote the prohibition against contracts in restraint of trade.' " Farm Bureau Life Ins. v. Dolly, 910 N.W.2d 196, 201 (S.D. 2018) (quoting Commc'n Tech. Sys., Inc. v. Densmore, 583 N.W.2d 125, 128 (S.D. 1998)).

The South Dakota Supreme Court's approach to statutory interpretation begins with the relevant statutes' texts. See Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Dolly, 910 N.W.2d 196, 199-200 (S.D. 2018).

The court noted "the South Dakota Supreme Court has made clear that ‘ [t]he general rule against contracts in restraint of a lawful profession, trade, or business is a legislative expression of public policy.'” (quoting Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Dolly, 910 N.W.2d 196, 201 (S.D. 2018))