Latest news with #MontanaConstitution
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Politics
- 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
San Francisco Chronicle
03-07-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court rejects Montana's bid to revive parental consent law for minors' abortions
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Thursday it will not hear a case involving a push to revive a law that minors must have their parents' permission for an abortion in Montana, where voters have enshrined the right to abortion in the state's constitution. The justices rebuffed an appeal from the Republican-led state seeking to overturn a Montana Supreme Court ruling that struck down the law. The parental consent law passed in 2013 but was blocked in court and never took effect before it was invalidated last year. 'The right that Montana seeks to vindicate here — parents' right to know about, and participate in, their child's medical decisions — falls well within the core of parents' fundamental rights,' state attorneys argued in court documents. Two conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, wrote separately to say the high court's denial to take up the case was about its technical legalities rather than rejection of the state's argument. Planned Parenthood argued that the Montana Supreme Court decision balanced the rights of parents and of minors in a state that has protected the right to abortion. Montana's highest recognized a right to abortion before the Supreme Court overturned it nationwide, and voters also enshrined it in the Montana Constitution last year. 'Petitioners seek to use the parental right as a cudgel against a minor's rights,' the group wrote. 'The broader interests of the child must be accounted for along with parental rights.' The law would require notarized, written consent for people younger than 18 to get an abortion. It would also allow minors to petition judges for permission, a process known as judicial bypass. Montana also has another law in place requiring parents be notified of minors' abortions. More than two dozen states require parents consent to abortions for minors, though the laws have also been blocked in California and New Mexico, according to data gathered by KFF, a nonprofit that researches health care issues. Twelve more states require parental notification, though three of those laws are also blocked in court.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Montana Supreme Court: When the public's right to know is vindicated, attorneys fees should follow
The entrance to the Montana Supreme Court (Photo by Eric Seidle/ For the Daily Montanan). 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
E&E News
28-05-2025
- Business
- E&E News
Montana lawmakers blunt group's historic court win on climate
Climate activists scored a pair of landmark legal victories in Montana over the past two years, giving momentum to similar youth-led efforts across the globe. Now state lawmakers have responded by targeting the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which helped propel the young activists to a courtroom win after they argued the law violated their constitutional right to a healthy environment. Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, a Republican, signed a package of bills into law this month that rewrite sections of the 1971 law. Flanked by Republican lawmakers and the state's top environmental appointee, Gianforte said the legislation 'reduces red tape and provides certainty to small and large businesses across our state.' Advertisement The measures that were added to the law restrict the scope of environmental reviews related to greenhouse gases and declare that the analyses are for informational purposes only and can't be used to deny permits. 'No more fantasyland ideas from climate crusaders who think Montana can run on solar panels and wishful thinking,' state Sen. Wylie Galt said at a Republican leadership press conference as the bills advanced. Environmentalists, however, said the changes put the state increasingly at odds with the courts. 'They are attempting to unwind what is constitutionally guaranteed,' said Derf Johnson, deputy director of the Montana Environmental Information Center. 'Once again, we're passing laws that are clearly problematic in terms of what our constitution requires.' Republicans in the state House and Senate acknowledged that the legislation was a response to the state's loss in Held v. Montana, which Galt called a 'present to radical environmental activists.' In the case brought by 16 young people, a state court declared in August 2023 that lawmakers had violated the Montana Constitution by barring state agencies from considering the climate effects of fossil fuel projects. At issue was the Legislature's decision in 2011 to revise MEPA to exclude consideration of out-of-state climate emissions when weighing whether to approve projects such as power plants. In-state climate emissions were excluded by the Legislature in 2023, before the case went to trial. Later that year, Judge Kathy Seeley of the 1st Judicial District Court in Montana struck down the two emissions-related measures that were added to the environmental policy act, finding that youth in the state have a 'fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.' The 2023 ruling was a major victory for the young people, who made history by securing a win in the nation's first climate trial brought by young plaintiffs. It also boosted other climate litigation, including a similar lawsuit in Hawaii that was settled last June when state officials reached an agreement with the youth. And it was upheld in December by the Montana Supreme Court, which found that the delegates who wrote the 1972 Montana Constitution intended to provide 'the strongest environmental protection provision found in any state constitution.' Neither ruling sat well with Republican lawmakers — who had filed their own friend of the court brief urging the high court to reject the case. 'In that Held decision, it was kind of like we had — and I'm going to say something a little spicy — a bunch of little Greta Thunbergs, it seemed like,' state Rep. Randyn Gregg, a Republican, said on a podcast in January as the legislative session opened. Held v. Montana 'didn't just make headlines, it sent shock waves through Montana's economy,' said state Rep. Greg Oblander, a Republican, calling it an 'open invitation for activists to weaponize our environmental laws against the very industries that keep Montana running.' 'Weaponizing and litigation' Republicans proposed a package of bills to counter the court rulings, arguing that MEPA was intended to provide guidance to government officials — not serve as a means to deter coal, oil and gas projects. 'In the Held v. Montana court case, they tried to twist MEPA into something it was never meant to be — a tool to deny permits and block development,' state House Speaker Brandon Ler (R) said as Gianforte signed the package into law earlier this month. Ler, who sponsored one of the bills, said his legislation underscores the idea that environmental reviews are only procedural: 'It's a way to gather facts, weigh impacts and make informed decisions — not dictate them,' he said. 'We're making it clear that Montana's environmental policy is about informed decision-making, and not weaponizing and litigation.' Most Montana environmental laws begin with a reference to the state constitution, but Ler's bill strikes that language from MEPA. Another bill sets guidelines for MEPA assessments, narrowing the scope so that it does not not include greenhouse gas emissions beyond the boundaries of a proposed plant. That would mean a coal mine's exports wouldn't be a factor, for example. A third bill does not revise MEPA, but prevents the state from adopting any clean air standards that are more stringent than federal ones. A parade of fossil fuel interests, business groups and unions supported the measure. Federal standards 'are more than adequate,' Dan Brooks of the Billings Chamber of Commerce told lawmakers. Eva Lighthiser, one of the 16 young challengers who testified at the Held trial, told lawmakers that it was wrong to prevent the state from regulating harmful greenhouse gases. 'This bill goes against our constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment,' she said. 'This bill evades the state's responsibility to uphold our constitutional rights.' Other legislative efforts aimed at blunting Held were not as successful. Less than a month after the Montana Supreme Court upheld the Held decision, the court cited the decision in a ruling that determined state officials had not conducted an adequate review of a controversial gas-fired power plant. That ruling, along with the court's decision to uphold Held, prompted lawmakers to call for partisan judicial elections, as well as a new court that would focus on business interests. Neither of the measures passed the Legislature. Our Children's Trust, the public interest law firm that represented the young people in Montana, said it plans to stay active in the state. 'The disdain lawmakers showed for the decision really affirms it's a momentous decision and will have significant effects in Montana,' said Nate Bellinger, supervising senior staff attorney at the Oregon-based firm. He noted that lawmakers did not alter the constitution, which says public officials have a constitutional duty to protect people's right to a clean and healthful environment. 'We will continue to be there, to help represent youth and enforce and uphold the right to a clean environment,' Bellinger said. 'If that means follow-up litigation, that's what it means.'
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gianforte vetoes bills that would have limited executive, judicial privilege
Photo illustration by Getty Images. Gov. Greg Gianforte vetoed two bills respectively designed to make the executive and judicial branches of government more transparent to the public — but acknowledged the public's strong right to know in the Montana Constitution. In a veto letter, Gianforte also acknowledged his frustration with 'judicial activism.' House Bill 271 was aimed at ensuring transparency by the executive branch by limiting 'executive privilege,' or the governor's power to withhold specific government information. Senate Bill 40 would have required Montana Supreme Court deliberations to be recorded and, after a case closed, be made available to the public. Gianforte, a Republican, vetoed both bills on Friday using similar rationale, and proponents of HB 271, including the bill sponsor, soon pushed back against 'secret decisions' made by the executive branch. However, University of Montana law school faculty member Constance Van Kley said the rationales offer consistency, and she said members of the public don't lose any rights to information and remain free to request government documents. 'Fundamentally, what it reinforces is that … the existence of privileges from the right to know raises constitutional questions, and the scope of any privilege that is asserted against the right to know raises legal questions,' Van Kley said. In his veto letters, the governor said although the Montana Constitution 'contains some of the strongest — if not the strongest — rights to public information,' limitations exist. He said during the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention, delegates acknowledged that privileges, 'such as judicial privilege,' shape the scope of the right to know, or allow for some information to be protected. Gianforte said legislators passed SB 40 'in response to rampant judicial activism,' and he understands and shares their 'deep frustration' and sees it 'as a threat to our constitutional order.' 'Time and time again, judges across Montana issue rulings that infringe on the Legislature's policymaking authority and a governor's ability to faithfully execute the laws,' Gianforte said in the letter. 'The effect of Senate Bill 40, however, will chill candor among justices against the public's interest and weaponize those discussions in future litigation. 'Legal arguments will no longer be properly focused on majority decisions of the court and discussion among justices may become less honest and robust.' Van Kley said the delegates in 1972 generally wanted openness in government, but with limits. 'At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates were really focused primarily on transparency and not exceptions to transparency,' Van Kley said. 'However, they did recognize that judicial deliberations were generally not open to the public already, and so that did seem to be on the delegates' minds as an exception to the transparency provision.' The governor used a similar argument in his veto of HB 271, although he also cited the Montana Supreme Court's order in O'Neill vs. Gianforte. In that case, a citizen and former government official, Jayson O'Neill, sued the Governor's Office after it would not provide him forms used to track legislation, citing executive privilege and the need for candor in decision-making. The Supreme Court found a gubernatorial privilege is 'necessary to the integrity of government,' but it also said it is not an absolute privilege, and the governor must meet 'a high bar' to keep information private. In the veto letter, the governor said HB 271 attempts to repeal a 'constitutional privilege,' and signing it into law would be contrary to the public interest. 'House Bill 271 categorically limits a governor's constitutional expectation of privacy where he is executing his constitutional duties,' Gianforte said in the letter. Democrat Rep. Ed Stafman of Bozeman sponsored the bill, and he said earlier this year that it would 'restore transparency and open government in the executive branch to what it has consistently been for at least 50 years.' In the earlier interview, Stafman also said Montana hadn't previously recognized executive privilege, the Supreme Court crafted a narrow decision based on common law, and the Legislature has the authority to overturn common law through statute, which his bill aimed to do. In a statement this week about the veto, Stafman said it allows a backslide in Montana's history of open government. 'Even as the judicial and legislative branches become more transparent, if we let the executive branch become the place where secret decisions are made and deals are cut, then that's where the public's constitutionally protected 'right to know' will die,' Stafman said. The Right to Know in Article II Section 9 of the Montana Constitution states the following: 'No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure.' House Minority Leader Katie Sullivan, D-Missoula, also said Montana's governor answers to the people, and previous governors, both Democrats and Republicans, have made documents available to the public. 'But Gov. Gianforte now sees himself above the law,' Sullivan said in a statement. 'He is hiding documents from the public, battling transparency requests in court, bending the rules, and making new ones, all to hide from the people. What is he hiding?' Van Kley said it would be difficult for other branches of government to claim privilege if HB 271 became law and was found to be constitutional. That's because, according to one view of privilege, it's reasonable to expect that privileges among branches 'should be roughly equivalent to each other,' said Van Kley, with the UM Alexander Blewett III School of Law. Van Kley argued on behalf of plaintiff O'Neill in front of the Montana Supreme Court, so would speak only generally about the Constitutional issues it raised when contacted by the Daily Montanan on Tuesday. In his veto letter, Gianforte discussed the same: 'The Legislature itself has legislative privilege. Senate Bill 40 upsets the separation of powers by eroding the privilege of one branch of government while retaining it in another.' Van Kley said the veto letter outlines a legitimate view of the separation of powers, and it is consistent with the veto letter for SB 40 which claims the judicial privilege is grounded in the separation of powers. The order from the Montana Supreme Court, however, said gubernatorial privilege is among the 'candor privileges,' such as those protecting the confidential relationship between a priest and churchgoer. The order said those privileges are rooted not in separation of powers but in the 'historical and practical need of society for candor between individuals and those from whom they are seeking counsel,' including government officials. Van Kley also said the vetoes take off the table any questions about the constitutionality of the bills, and she said a citizen can still request records and claim a constitutional right to examine documents in Montana. 'The veto is not going to privilege any documents that aren't already privileged,' Van Kley said. Now that a court ruling recognizes executive privilege 'to some degree,' Van Kley said she expects specific questions to emerge and end up litigated. In January 2025, the Montana Supreme Court directed the district court to do a private review of the documents O'Neill had requested to determine whether they were protected or could be released to the public. The case was filed in 2021 and is pending. Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson, sponsored SB 40, and he could not be reached for comment Tuesday by voicemail.
