Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Two individuals who are transgender women, one living in Montana and the other in Alaska, challenged recent Montana laws and administrative policies that restrict the ability to amend the sex designation on birth certificates and driver's licenses. These state actions, enacted in response to legislative changes, allow amendments to these documents only in limited circumstances such as clerical errors, not to reflect a person’s gender identity. The plaintiffs argued that these restrictions forced them to carry identification that does not match their gender identity, resulting in concrete harms such as disclosure of their transgender status during routine activities and difficulties in verifying their identity.The case was filed in the First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of equal protection, right to privacy, and prohibition against compelled speech under the Montana Constitution, as well as violations of the Montana Administrative Procedure Act. The District Court found that the plaintiffs had standing, demonstrated concrete and particularized injuries, and satisfied all four factors required for a preliminary injunction. The court concluded that the policies likely violated Montana’s Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against transgender individuals on the basis of sex, and that the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm without relief. The District Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the challenged state policies as applied to amending birth certificates and driver’s licenses.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the plaintiffs had standing and whether the District Court manifestly abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s order. It held that the plaintiffs had standing and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the state policies likely constitute unconstitutional sex discrimination under Article II, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution, warranting preliminary injunctive relief. View "Kalarchik v. State" on Justia Law

The Montana legislature enacted a law, HB 937, and associated administrative rules that imposed new licensure and regulatory requirements specifically on abortion clinics, which were defined as facilities providing abortion-inducing drugs or performing surgical abortions to at least five patients per year. These requirements did not apply to clinics that provided identical medications and procedures exclusively for miscarriage management. Plaintiffs, including two clinics and a nurse practitioner, challenged the law and rules, arguing that they violated the equal protection and privacy rights guaranteed by the Montana Constitution. They asserted that these new requirements could force them to cease providing abortion care, thereby restricting their patients’ access to such services.After the plaintiffs filed their complaint, the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, initially granted a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction, preventing enforcement of HB 937 and the associated rules. The District Court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their equal protection claim, that irreparable harm was likely absent an injunction, that the balance of equities favored the plaintiffs, and that an injunction was in the public interest. The court determined that the law treated similarly situated providers—those giving identical care for either miscarriage or abortion—differently solely based on the purpose of the treatment. The court applied strict scrutiny, finding that the state had not demonstrated a compelling interest or that the law was narrowly tailored.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court held that HB 937 and the rules likely violate the Montana Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection by subjecting abortion providers to unique, burdensome licensing requirements not imposed on providers of identical miscarriage care, thus likely infringing on the fundamental right to privacy. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs met all four elements required for a preliminary injunction and affirmed the lower court’s order in its entirety. View "All Families v. State" on Justia Law

A group of business and industry associations challenged the Montana Attorney General’s March 6, 2026 determination that Proposed Ballot Measure No. 10 was legally sufficient to proceed in the initiative process. Ballot Measure No. 10 sought to amend state law by defining “artificial persons” and excluding “political spending power” from the rights granted to such entities. The challengers argued that the measure was facially unconstitutional because it restricted political speech, was vague, and improperly conditioned benefits on the waiver of constitutional rights.The challenge was brought directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana under its original jurisdiction. The Attorney General had performed only a procedural review, declining to address the measure’s substantive constitutionality due to a prior order by the First Judicial District Court in Ellingson v. State, which had enjoined the statutory provision that would have allowed such substantive review. The petitioners requested the Supreme Court to require the Attorney General to review the measure’s constitutionality and to reverse his finding of legal sufficiency.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the Attorney General does not have authority to consider the substantive constitutionality of proposed ballot initiatives during legal sufficiency review under current law and precedent. The Court reaffirmed that pre-election constitutional challenges to initiatives are generally disfavored, as the people have a constitutional right to use the initiative process. Because Ballot Measure No. 10 had not yet qualified for the ballot, the Court declined to address the merits of the constitutional arguments, finding such review would be advisory. The Court denied and dismissed the petition, and also denied as moot motions to intervene and to file amicus briefs. View "Montana Mining Assn. v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was released from custody on the express condition that he appear at a scheduled adjudicatory hearing related to an unrelated felony. He failed to appear at the specified time and place, leading the State to charge him with the felony offense of Bail Jumping under Montana law. The defendant was arrested about ten weeks after missing the hearing. He pled not guilty and subsequently moved to dismiss the charge, arguing both that the statute was unconstitutionally vague—particularly regarding the requirement that his failure to appear be “without lawful excuse”—and that the State had failed to allege sufficient facts to establish probable cause, since it did not affirmatively show he lacked a lawful excuse.The Twentieth Judicial District Court of Montana denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant then entered a plea agreement, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. He admitted to the facts constituting the offense, including that he did not have a lawful excuse for missing the hearing.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether Montana’s bail-jumping statute is unconstitutionally vague and whether the State must allege facts negating the existence of a lawful excuse to establish probable cause. The Supreme Court held that the statute provides fair notice and sufficient guidelines to defendants and law enforcement, and is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant’s conduct. The Court also held that the State is not required to allege or prove the absence of a lawful excuse in its charging documents; rather, the existence of a lawful excuse is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the initial burden of production. The Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. View "State v. Trombley" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted in Oregon in 2001 of attempted unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree and sexual abuse in the second degree. After completing his sentence, including probation, in 2014, he moved to Montana in 2016 and registered as a sexual offender as required by law. In 2023, the Montana Department of Justice attempted to verify his address, but the verification was returned undeliverable. The defendant left a voicemail reporting a new address but did not update his registration in person, as required by the current statute.The State of Montana charged the defendant in 2024 with failure to register as a sexual offender, expressly citing the 2023 version of the Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act (SVORA) in its charging documents. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that retroactive application of the 2023 SVORA to his pre-2007 conviction violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Montana Constitution. The Second Judicial District Court agreed and dismissed the charge, concluding that applying the 2023 SVORA retroactively was unconstitutional.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s dismissal de novo. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the State charged the defendant under the 2023 SVORA—and this Court has previously held that the post-2007 version of SVORA is punitive and cannot be applied retroactively to convictions predating its enactment—the prosecution could not stand. The Court emphasized that the State could not rely on older versions of SVORA not cited in the charging documents and did not address arguments regarding restoration of rights, limiting its decision to the ex post facto violation. The order of dismissal was affirmed. View "State v. Pratt" on Justia Law

A group comprised of property owners from several Montana cities challenged the constitutionality of several zoning and land use laws enacted in 2023, including statutes requiring municipalities to permit accessory dwelling units and duplexes in single-family zones, and the Montana Land Use Planning Act (MLUPA), which imposed comprehensive planning requirements on larger cities. The group argued that these laws unfairly burdened single-family neighborhoods, undermined the right of citizens to participate in land-use decisions, and violated equal protection by creating arbitrary distinctions between citizens.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court initially granted partial relief to the challengers, enjoining certain statutory provisions it found violated the right to participate, and declared that the new laws could not supersede more restrictive private covenants. The court also held that the housing statutes did not violate equal protection. Parties on both sides appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed these rulings. It first found that the public participation claims were justiciable, as a live controversy remained due to the likelihood of the challenged provisions recurring after temporary legislative amendments expired. The court held that the MLUPA’s public participation procedures did not, on their face, violate the Montana Constitution’s right to participate, as the statutes provided for notice and reasonable opportunity for public input, especially during the development of comprehensive plans, even if not at every stage of the process.The court also affirmed that the statutes did not violate equal protection, because the alleged classes—citizens in cities subject to MLUPA versus those outside, or those with versus without private covenants—were not similarly situated for constitutional purposes. Finally, the court vacated the lower court’s declaratory judgment regarding private covenants, finding it was an improper advisory opinion. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the lower court’s judgment. View "M.A.I.D. v. State" on Justia Law

A vehicle reported stolen was located by police, who discovered Alejandro Flores-Reyes had been driving it and was in possession of its keys. Flores-Reyes stated he had purchased the car and that the items inside belonged to him. Police contacted the registered owner, who consented to a search of the vehicle. The officers, without Flores-Reyes’ consent, conducted a search, manipulated a concealed panel, and found a closed zippered pouch in a hidden compartment. Upon opening the pouch, they found pills suspected to contain fentanyl. The officers then obtained warrants based on this discovery and, during subsequent searches, seized additional narcotics from the vehicle and from Flores-Reyes’ motel room.After initial charges were filed in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, the case was dismissed to allow for federal prosecution, but was later reinstated at the State’s request when the federal case was abandoned. Flores-Reyes moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search violated his constitutional rights and that the subsequent warrants were tainted by the prior unlawful search. The District Court denied the motion, ruling that Flores-Reyes had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle as he lacked a legitimate possessory interest, and convicted him of three counts of criminal possession with intent to distribute.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana found that the warrantless search of the closed pouch in the concealed compartment exceeded the scope of the owner’s consent because there was no mutual use or joint access to the pouch. The court held that the search violated both the Montana and United States Constitutions. As such, the court reversed the District Court’s order, vacated Flores-Reyes’ convictions, and remanded for suppression of all evidence obtained from the unlawful search and its fruits. View "State v. Flores-Reyes" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted by a jury in 2018 of several offenses, including aggravated assault, sexual assault, assault on a peace officer, escape, and criminal possession of dangerous drugs. After initially having court-appointed counsel, he retained private attorneys under a fixed-fee contract, with his grandmother paying $150,000 upfront. Ten months later, the relationship between the appellant and his retained counsel deteriorated to the point of a complete breakdown, leading counsel to seek withdrawal. The court held a hearing, found an irreconcilable breakdown, allowed withdrawal, and appointed new counsel. The appellant was then represented by court-appointed attorneys through his trial and sentencing. His conviction and subsequent claims of error, including those relating to ineffective assistance of counsel, were affirmed on direct appeal, and his petition for certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court.In postconviction proceedings before the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, the appellant asserted numerous grounds for relief, focusing on claims of ineffective assistance by retained trial counsel (for seeking withdrawal but keeping the fixed fee) and by appellate counsel (for not arguing that separate counsel should have been appointed at the withdrawal hearing). After a bench trial and extensive litigation, the District Court denied all claims, finding no constitutional violations. The court also noted that the appellant’s dispute over fees had been separately resolved through mediation and civil proceedings.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the circumstances did not demonstrate a structural denial of counsel warranting a presumption of prejudice under United States v. Cronic, nor did the fixed-fee contract create an actual conflict of interest resulting in ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington. The Court further found that appellate counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise the claim regarding appointment of separate counsel at the withdrawal hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s denial of postconviction relief. View "Briggs v. State" on Justia Law

A group of petitioners proposed a constitutional amendment, designated as Ballot Issue 8 (BI-8), which would add a new section to the Montana Constitution. This amendment would explicitly recognize a fundamental right to initiative and referendum and set forth procedural protections to ensure the timely, impartial, and unburdened exercise of those rights. BI-8 also contains limits on governmental interference, including a prohibition on the use of government resources to support or oppose ballot measures. The Attorney General determined that BI-8 was legally insufficient, arguing it violated the Montana Constitution’s separate-vote requirement by effecting multiple, unrelated constitutional changes. The Attorney General also appended a fiscal statement to BI-8, based on speculative litigation costs, despite the fiscal note indicating zero fiscal impact.The Montana Attorney General’s legal-sufficiency determination was challenged in the Supreme Court of the State of Montana under its original jurisdiction. The main arguments centered on whether BI-8 improperly combined multiple unrelated constitutional subjects and whether the Attorney General had statutory authority to append a fiscal statement when the fiscal note showed no fiscal impact.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that BI-8 constituted a single constitutional amendment because its provisions were closely related and collectively served to define and protect the right to initiative and referendum. The Court explained that procedural protections and government-resource limitations were integral components of the proposed right, not separate constitutional subjects. The Court further held that the Attorney General lacked authority to append a fiscal statement since the fiscal note did not indicate a fiscal impact. As a result, the Court reversed the Attorney General’s determination, struck the fiscal statement, and ordered the Attorney General to prepare ballot statements for submission to the Secretary of State. View "Kendrick v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

The case concerns a series of events beginning with a brief acquaintance between the defendant and a Helena, Montana resident, who had recently purchased a vehicle. The resident reported the vehicle stolen two days after the purchase. The following day, the resident’s son witnessed the defendant in possession of the vehicle, which led to a chase ending in a crash that caused property damage. The defendant fled on foot and entered a nearby home without permission, where he was eventually found and apprehended by law enforcement.The State charged the defendant with Criminal Mischief, Burglary, and later, Bail Jumping after he failed to appear for court proceedings. The trial was delayed for approximately 18 months, during which a key witness, the homeowner who discovered the defendant in his house, relocated to Washington State and faced significant family and health-related responsibilities. Because of these circumstances, the State sought and obtained permission from the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, for the witness to testify at trial via two-way videoconferencing, over the defendant’s objection. The jury found the defendant guilty on all charges.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the district court violated the defendant’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment and the Montana Constitution by allowing live, remote testimony. The Supreme Court held that the district court did not err, explaining that case-specific findings demonstrated that remote testimony furthered an important public policy, considering the witness’s caretaking responsibilities and the travel burden. The court clarified that the “Craig test” for remote testimony does not require a showing of unavailability or a good-faith prosecutorial effort to secure in-person testimony if the witness is otherwise available by video. The defendant’s conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law