Montana Supreme Court: When the public's right to know is vindicated, attorneys fees should follow
In a sprawling, 61-page decision that had about as many opinions attached to it as members of Montana's highest court, a majority of justices said that the State of Montana, specifically the governor's office, should pay attorneys fees in a public documents fight between the office and groups wanting more information about a mining executive.
However, the particular details before the court were not whether a former mining executive should be permitted to lead a mining company after his former company was found to be a 'bad actor' by state law. Instead, the Montana Supreme Court weighed in on when the government should pay attorneys fees in the public records dispute.
In a fractured mix of majority, concurring and dissenting opinions, at least four justices agreed that Lewis and Clark District Judge Christopher Abbott should have given attorneys fees to the Montana Environmental Information Center and Earthworks, which had sued Gov. Greg Gianforte for documents related to Phillips S. Baker, Jr., and permitting documents related to both Hecla Mining and the Montanore mine. The MEIC argued that the state had not enforced its 'bad actor' provision against Baker, the Hecla CEO, because of his leadership in a company that went went bankrupt, while leaving millions of dollars of mining mess to be taken care of in perpetuity by the state.
MEIC and Earthworks, which won the public documents fight against the governor, also asked for attorneys fees because they brought the lawsuit under the Montana Constitution's right-to-know provisions. In the state, judges have discretion to award attorneys fees when private groups or individuals are successful in vindicating constitutional rights, like obtaining public documents.
Previously, the Montana State Supreme Court had been reluctant to recommend a checklist of conditions that have to be met in order to award attorneys fees, instead relying on the judgment of district or trial court judges. However, a majority of the court decided to take up the issue, saying that more guidance was necessary for judges, something a minority, including Chief Justice Cory Swanson, balked at. The dissenting opinions centered on the idea that judges should still have latitude to decide on a case-by-case basis, and that if the Legislature wanted to mandate attorneys fees, it should be done in law.
Justice Laurie McKinnon wrote the majority opinion, with James Jeremiah Shea, Katherine Bidegaray and Ingrid Gustafson concurring. Justices Jim Rice and Beth Baker, along with Swanson were in the minority.
The majority pointed out in the case that the governor's office had employed a 'novel' legal theory that Abbott debunked, but even so, 'the court found the governor's office shirked its clear legal duty to MEIC's request.'
'When a party succeeds in litigation based on a right to know request, it has performed a public service in ensuring that Montana's government is appropriately transparent and accountable to the people,' the majority opinion said.
The justices reasoned that if constitutionally protected rights are meaningful, then litigation — or the ability to take the government to court — must be accessible.
'The result of the district court's order — that MEIC prevailed and undeniably performed a public service, yet it is denied attorney's fees — is dissonant with the foundational purposes of Article II, Section 9, and actively disincentivizes citizens from enforcing that right,' the majority opinion said. 'For citizens to be able to enforce the provision against the government, litigation must be accessible; for litigation to be accessible, there should be a basic presumption towards awarding attorney's fees when the party seeking to enforce the right to know has prevailed on its merits.'
The majority shifted the blame back to the Montana Supreme Court, saying the state's provisions for awarding attorneys fees had created a 'vacuum of necessary guidance,' and the majority wanted to more fully develop the advice.
Abbott had determined that because Gianforte had not acted in bad faith, and because attorneys fees would essentially be borne by Montana taxpayers, he decided not to award attorneys fees.
However, the court said the calculus Abbott used — whether there was evidence of bad faith — shouldn't be the deciding factor in the right-to-know cases.
'When a plaintiff prevails on the merits of a right to know dispute, it means that, whether in good faith or bad faith, the government pushed back against the constitutional presumption and, in doing so, violated a fundamental right,' the opinion said. 'But because we have previously neglected to suggest a presumption — or even a preference — for awarding fees in this context, even plaintiffs with an exceptionally strong case and an egregious violation must carefully consider whether it is worth the risk of winning the documents but losing fees.'
The court's opinion also said it was taking up the matter because it's essential for courts and citizens to understand fundamental or Constitutional rights.
'We seek to provide basic guidance that works to encourage and strengthen the people's exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. This presumption does not eliminate judicial discretion, but rather structures it to reflect the constitutional emphasis on transparency,' the ruling said. 'This presumption is not a novelty imagined at the whims of this court; it is part of the fabric of the right to know which has been errantly lost to an unboundedly deferential standard that allows for results fundamentally at odds with the Constitution.'
Leaders from both Earthworks and MEIC cheered the decision, saying the decision was a win for residents who want to keep tabs on government officials.
'Montana's Constitution guarantees the public the right to know what government is up to. Justice only works when every person has the ability to oversee their government,' said Anne Hedges, executive director with MEIC. 'This decision will ensure the public can continue to access government documents and will prevent abuse when the government officials refuse to comply with the constitution.'
MEIC Earthworks right to know decision
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
04-07-2025
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines to revive Montana law that would require parental consent for minors to obtain abortions
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday turned away an appeal brought by Montana officials seeking to revive a state law that requires minors seeking abortions to obtain the consent of their parents. The state argued that the measure, which was enacted in 2013 but never went into effect because of litigation, should be upheld based on the right of parents to decide on health care decisions involving their children. The Montana Supreme Court struck down the law last year, saying it violated the state constitution, including a provision that protects the rights of minors. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote a statement agreeing with the decision not to hear the case, saying it was a 'poor vehicle' but expressing some support for the underlying legal arguments. His statement was joined by fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas. In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in, Montana officials said the state high court's ruling was inconsistent with the right of parents to oversee the care of their children, which has been recognized under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The law requires any minor seeking an abortion to obtain parental consent or a waiver that can be sought from a judge in certain circumstances. The state court ruled that 'a minor's right to control her reproductive decisions is among the most fundamental of the rights she possesses' and the state had failed to show how its own interests overcame those protections. Montana is an outlier among Republican-led states in that abortion remains widely available despite the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that overturned abortion rights landmark Roe v. Wade. The Montana Supreme Court has long recognized a right to abortion under the state constitution, and in 2024 voters also approved a ballot initiative that protects the right to abortion. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Yahoo
Justices Alito and Thomas want anti-abortion lawyers to bring them a parental consent appeal
The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to review an appeal raising the issue of parental consent for abortion. But that doesn't mean the court won't take a different case raising that issue in the future. Indeed, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a statement accompanying the denial, highlighting reasons why this case wasn't an appropriate one in which to consider the issue — a statement that doubly serves as a call for anti-abortion lawyers to bring him a better case. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Alito said the appeal from Montana was a 'poor vehicle' for the justices to decide whether parents have the right to know and participate in decisions regarding their kids' medical care, including the decision to seek an abortion. When lawyers and justices refer to a case as being a good 'vehicle,' they mean the case presents a straightforward opportunity for the court to address a broader issue, without procedural complications lurking in the case that could interfere with the justices issuing a ruling that will set a national standard on an important legal question. In his statement Thursday, Alito noted that Montana's lawyers didn't specifically argue during state court proceedings that infringement of parents' federal constitutional rights was at stake. He also noted that Montana's Supreme Court, when it ruled against the state, didn't claim that the rights of minors took precedence over parents' federal constitutional rights. That background, therefore, made for a faulty foundation for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the big question that Montana's lawyers pressed to the justices. Lawyers for Planned Parenthood of Montana made similar points in their brief successfully opposing Supreme Court review, which takes four justices to grant. 'This case has never been a vehicle for considering the question presented' by the state, they wrote in their opposition brief, framing the matter as a state issue that the U.S. Supreme Court didn't need to get involved in. While that opposition was successful, Alito stressed that the denial doesn't mean the issue can't come back someday. The author of the Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade seems to hope that it will. 'It is therefore especially important that the denial of review is not read by interested parties or other courts as a rejection of the argument that the petition asks us to decide,' he wrote. The denial came on the same day that the justices agreed to take on a new big national issue, regarding the participation of transgender girls and women in sports. That one is set to be argued in the court's next term, which starts in October. The court will also have at least one abortion-related appeal next term, with a First Amendment challenge from an anti-abortion group that wants to avoid turning over donor information to state authorities. The court adds cases to its docket on a rolling basis, so more abortion-related appeals could come, whether on the consent issue or otherwise. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rejects case over Montana parental consent abortion law
Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to review a blocked Montana law that would require physicians to obtain a parent's consent before performing an abortion on a minor, leaving intact a state high court decision that invalidated the requirement. In rejecting the appeal from Montana state officials, the high court turned away what the officials said was a chance to clarify the scope of parents' right to be informed of and participate in their children's medical decisions, including abortion. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a separate statement respecting the court's decision not to take up the case. Alito said the case is a "poor vehicle" for deciding the question at hand. "It is therefore especially important that the denial of review is not read by interested parties or other courts as a rejection of the argument that the petition asks us to decide," Alito wrote. The long-running dispute dates back to 2013, when the Montana legislature approved the Parental Consent for Abortion Act, which requires physicians to obtain notarized written consent from a parent or guardian before performing an abortion for patients under the age of 18. The law allows a minor who cannot get parental consent to access abortion care through a court order. Before the consent law took effect, in July 2013, Planned Parenthood sued to block the measure as a violation of the Montana Constitution. The Montana attorney general agreed to a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the consent requirement, and it has never gone into effect. A separate state law that requires parental notification before an abortion is performed on a minor is in place. The case languished for several years until the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade. A state trial court ruled that the consent requirement violated the Montana Constitution because it interfered with a minor's right to privacy. The state appealed, and the Montana Supreme Court upheld the district court's decision. It found that when evaluated under the most stringent level of judicial review, strict scrutiny, the consent law was not narrowly tailored to any of Montana's compelling interests that they said justified the requirement. The consent rule, the state supreme court found, violates the "fundamental right of a minor to control her body and destiny," as guaranteed by the state constitution. Montana officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the state court's decision earlier this year and warned that its view of a minor's right to privacy under the state constitution threatens parental rights under the federal Constitution to direct their child's medical care, including decisions about abortion and access to contraception. "State experimentation with the scope of a minor's state constitutional right to seek an abortion threatens to erode parents' federal fundamental rights," Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen wrote in urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal. State officials are asking the justices to decide whether a fundamental right to direct the care and custody of their children includes a right to "know and participate in decisions" about their medical care, including getting an abortion. But lawyers for Planned Parenthood urged the high court to turn away the case because it involves unique provisions of Montana's Constitution — one that grants all Montana citizens the right to individual privacy and a second that guarantees minors the same state constitutional rights as adults. State officials, they wrote in a filing, "seek to use the parental right as a cudgel against a minor's rights." "The court's protection of a minor's right to privacy is not any less of a deserving counterweight to the federal Constitution's guarantee of parental rights, simply because that protection inheres in Montana's constitution," Planned Parenthood lawyers wrote. The Montana Supreme Court recognized the right to abortion under its constitution in 1999, and it is legal up to the point of fetal viability. In the 2024 election, Montana voters approved an initiative that amended the state constitution to "expressly provide a right to make and carry out decisions about one's own pregnancy, including the right to abortion." Supreme Court takes up case on bans for transgender athletes in girls' and women's sports Liverpool soccer star Diogo Jota killed in car crash in Spain, officials say What to know about Rep. Hakeem Jeffries hours-long House speech ahead of budget bill vote
