Montana Supreme CourtAuthor: William L. Saunders Jr.
| State High Court | Judicial Selection Process | Legal Authority |
|---|---|---|
General
Interim Vacancies
|
Latest News
- Montana Supreme Court Holds that State Constitution Protects Youth Plaintiffs’ Right to Protection from Climate Change - The National Law Review
- Montana Supreme Court Upholds Climate Ruling Enshrining Right to a "Stable Climate" - JD Supra
- Montana State Supreme Court Upholds Historic Climate Decision - The American Prospect
- Montana Supreme Court upholds landmark youth climate ruling: What was the case? - The Indian Express
- Supreme Court deals blow to Bozeman's single-use plastics initiative approved in November - Daily Montanan
- Montana Supreme Court Rules That The State Constitution Means What It Says - CleanTechnica
- Three Takeaways From the Montana Supreme Court Decision Guaranteeing a Right to a Stable Climate - The National Law Review
- Montana Supreme Court sides with plaintiffs in climate change lawsuit - KFYR
- Montana Supreme Court Upholds Climate Ruling Enshrining Right to a "Stable Climate" - The National Law Review
- A Landmark Victory in the Legal Fight Against Climate Change - Slate
Scholarship & White Papers
-
Supreme Court Reaffirms Its Holding from Citizens United
In denying a recent petition for certiorari and summarily reversing a decision of the Montana Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court adhered to principles of stare decisis and reaffirmed its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (“Citizens United”), which held that corporations and labor unions’ independent spending for political campaigns enjoys First Amendment free-speech protection.1 The Montana Supreme Court had upheld a state law that prohibited corporate political expenditures, reasoning that Citizens United did not apply in Montana because of the state’s purportedly distinctive history of its “political system being corrupted by corporate interests.”2 The United States Supreme Court disagreed, summarily reversing without granting certiorari.3
-
Montana Takes on Citizens United
From the Montana Supreme Court comes a potential challenge to the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (“Citizens United”). The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision ruled, 5-4, that corporations’ and labor unions’ independent spending in elections is political speech and does not corrupt the political process; therefore, a ban on such spending included in section 203 of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”) could not survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
-
Montana Supreme Court: Physician-Assisted Suicide Is an End-of-Life Option
On the last day of 2009, Montana’s Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Baxter v. Montana,1 making it the first high court to permit physician-assisted suicide. “[W]e find nothing in Montana Supreme Court precedent or Montana statutes indicating that physician aid in dying is against public policy,”2 stated the court. “We also find nothing in the plain language of Montana statutes indicating that physician aid in dying is against public policy. In physician aid in dying, the patient—not the physician—commits the final death-causing act by self administering a lethal dose of medicine.”3 Therefore, under Montana’s consent statute4 “a terminally ill patient’s consent to physician aid in dying constitutes a statutory defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician when no other consent exceptions apply.”