Montana

Decade-long legal challenge to abortion consent law reaches Montana Supreme Court

Published

2 years ago

March 7, 2024

Decade-long legal challenge to abortion consent law reaches Montana Supreme Court

HELENA — On Wednesday, the Montana Supreme Court heard arguments in a decade-long case, challenging a law that would require parental consent before a minor could get an abortion.

In 2013, the Montana Legislature passed House Bill 391, which prohibited anyone under 18 from getting an abortion without notarized written consent from their parent or legal guardian. Exceptions would be allowed in a medical emergency or if a minor successfully petitioned a court to waive the requirement.

The bill became law without the signature of then-Gov. Steve Bullock, but it never went into effect, as Planned Parenthood of Montana sued over it and the office of then-Attorney General Tim Fox accepted a preliminary injunction. Over the following years, the case passed through several district court judges, eventually ending up with District Judge Chris Abbott of Helena. Last year, he ruled the law was invalid because it infringed on the right to privacy in the Montana Constitution.

Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office appealed Abbott’s decision, saying he used the wrong standard when judging the law. Abbott applied “strict scrutiny,” meaning the state had to show a compelling interest to justify the law and that it was narrowly tailored to achieve its goal.

Deputy solicitor general Brent Mead told justices Wednesday that the law should be analyzed differently because the Montana Constitution grants the state more authority to make laws that affect the rights of people under the age of 18. He said that means the Armstrong decision – the 1999 Montana Supreme Court ruling that said abortion was covered under the state constitution’s right of privacy – doesn’t apply in full here.

“Under Article 2, Section 15, a minor’s rights can be infringed if the law is designed to protect them,” said Mead. “And so in this case, the full Article 2, Section 10 – the right to privacy – doesn’t attach because the law is designed to protect them in that protected interest.”

Mead said the court should instead balance the individual rights of the minor with the rights of their parents and the state’s legitimate interest in protecting minors.

Justices questioned Mead on why strict scrutiny should not apply in this case, and whether the consent requirement was the least restrictive method possible, given an earlier law that only required a parent be notified – which also faced a lawsuit. Mead said the law was intended to resolve a loophole in the parental notification law and the two shouldn’t be directly contrasted.

Attorneys representing Planned Parenthood said Wednesday that Abbott did use the proper standard when deciding the case. They said, under strict scrutiny, the state would have to point to a legitimate health or safety risk to justify the law as a protection for minors, and they hadn’t done so.

Attorney Tanis Holm said the parental consent requirement would apply only to abortion, not to a variety of other procedures.

“Whatever interest the state has in promoting parental authority must be exercised neutrally, not as to favor childbirth over abortion, and certainly not to step in the shoes of parents to regulate the family relationship,” she said. “That is what the state is doing here.”

In questioning Holm, Justice Laurie McKinnon said that the court’s decision in a case last year had established a precedent that abortions are generally safe.

As is typical, the court took no immediate action after Wednesday’s arguments. Justice Beth Baker presided over the hearing in place of Chief Justice Mike McGrath, who recused himself from the case. Baker said the court would release their decision in due course.

This isn’t the only abortion-related case the Supreme Court is considering right now. They’ve also received an appeal, challenging a ruling from Knudsen’s office that blocked a ballot measure that would specifically protect access to abortion in the Montana Constitution. The office said the proposed amendment violated Montana’s requirement that unrelated constitutional changes be voted on separately.

Source link

Click to comment

Montana

Wind damage highlights insurance challenges for Montana homeowners

Published

10 hours ago

March 11, 2026

Press Room

Wind damage highlights insurance challenges for Montana homeowners

It’s the talk of the town this week — powerful winds ripped the roof off Lincoln Elementary School on Sunday, leaving students, teachers, and residents in shock.

The incident has sparked concern among homeowners who are now worried about how such weather damage could impact their own homes—and what their insurance would cover.

According to Tauna Locatelli, owner of Advantage Insurance, most insurance policies have a set deductible for things like fire or theft, but wind and hail damage deductibles are often much higher, or even based on a percentage of a property’s value.

Quentin Shores reports – watch the video here:

Wind damage highlights insurance challenges for Montana homeowners

“Right now our industry is going through a really challenging time, especially when it comes to wind and hail in Montana. Several carriers are going to a standard ‘all peril’ deductible for everything other than wind and hail. So, it could be $1,000 for all but wind and hail, $2,500 wind and hail,” Locatelli explained.

A deductible is the amount homeowners must pay before insurance covers the rest. For wind and hail, that deductible can be steep.

“Some companies are going 1 or 2% of a coverage value, so that’s the building value. If it’s insured for $500,000 and you have a 1% deductible, you’re looking at a $5,000 deductible for wind and hail, which is what we get in Montana,” Locatelli said.

It’s important for homeowners to know their deductible—if repairs cost less than the deductible, insurance won’t pay anything.

Filing small claims can also impact your rates; Locatelli said, “Because if you have a $3,000 patch job claim and you have a $5,000 deductible, you really don’t want to file that because you’re not going to get anything in. That claim is going to follow your insurance record for five years.”

Age of property factors in as well. If you have an older roof, insurance may not fully cover its replacement.

“You’ve now lived half the roof life. Well, insurance is about indemnity and putting you back in the same condition you were in before the loss. You can’t put a 16-year-old roof on a home, so at 16 years, they’ll now pay 50% of that roof instead of 100% because it’s already lived half of its life. And then it drops each year as it goes by,” Locatelli added.

The bottom line: Keep your property maintained, review your insurance policy, and think carefully before filing a claim—especially as Montana faces more intense weather.

Source link

Montana

Missoula and Western Montana neighbors: Obituaries for March 11

Published

22 hours ago

March 11, 2026

Press Room

Missoula and Western Montana neighbors: Obituaries for March 11

State

Zip Code

Country

Source link

Montana

Montana AG letter alleges Helena violates law banning ‘sanctuary cities’

Published

1 day ago

March 10, 2026

Press Room

Montana AG letter alleges Helena violates law banning ‘sanctuary cities’

HELENA — On Monday, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen sent a letter to the City of Helena claiming the municipality is not in compliance with the state’s law banning “sanctuary cities.” The letter comes just under a month after the State of Montana launched an investigation into a city resolution on Helena Police policy and Helena’s involvement in federal immigration enforcement.

In the letter, Knudsen laid out the ways he believes the city’s resolution violated state law. The attorney general gave Helena 15 days to respond or reverse the policy. If the city does not comply, his office will pursue legal action.

“Helena’s resolution appears to contain blatant violations of this law,” wrote Knudsen.

MTN News

On January 26, 2026, the City of Helena adopted a resolution clarifying when and how the Helena Police Department will cooperate with federal immigration officials. The vote was 4 to 1. The Helena commission seats and the mayor are elected in non-partisan races.

In the letter, Knudsen alleges the resolution established “a broad sanctuary city policy” that seeks to protect every illegal immigrant, regardless of whether the individual had committed a serious crime or not. The state further claims the resolution gives illegal immigrants “special privileges” in plea deals and establishes a “free-for-all policy” where a police officer can request the unmasking of Department of Homeland Security and ICE officers.

Knudsen has requested that the City of Helena, in their response, specifically describe in detail how the resolution complies with Montana law, provide emails and correspondence from city staff and the commission regarding the resolution.

Helena City manager Alana Lake told MTN in a statement: “The City of Helena is aware of the issues being raised by the Attorney General’s Office and is reviewing the matter. While we cannot discuss the details of a potential legal issue, the City is committed to transparency and compliance with the law. The City takes these matters seriously and will continue to cooperate with the appropriate authorities while remaining focused on serving our community.”

Passed in 2021, Montana House Bill 200 prohibits a state agency or local government from implementing any policy that prevents employees or departments from communicating with federal agencies regarding immigration or citizenship status for lawful purposes. It also states governments must comply with immigration detainer requests if they are lawfully made.

HB 200 was backed by Republicans and passed with only Republican votes. Gov. Greg Gianforte signed the legislation into law on March 31, 2021.

Passage of the resolution by the Helena City Commission has drawn ire from conservative voices in Montana politics and on the national level.

The resolution said the commission supported the Helena Police Department avoiding “committing its resources to federal action for which it has no authority,” such as entering into an agreement with the federal government to directly enforce immigration laws. Under federal law, immigration enforcement is conducted by federal agencies under the Department of Homeland Security. However, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, state and local governments can voluntarily enter into 287 (g) agreements with the federal government that allow them to enforce immigration laws.

The commission further supported HPD’s policy not to stop, detain, or arrest a person solely on suspected violations of immigration law, including assisting other agencies in an arrest based solely on immigration law.

DEEPER LOOK: Helena has seen a growing debate over ICE and local police involvement

In the resolution, the commission also supported an HPD officer, using their own discretion, requesting the identification and unmasking of a Department of Homeland Security Officer if the HPD officer “feels it will not be interfering with the actions of federal officers exercising their jurisdiction.”

“This adversarial relationship by local law enforcement toward federal officers itself undermines public safety and forces immigration officers to fear for their safety when they are simply carrying out their lawful duties,” wrote Knudsen.

The resolution further supports the City of Helena’s policy not to consider immigration consequences in a plea agreement with a defendant.

The commission also supports the City of Helena not disclosing any sensitive information about any person – including immigration status, sexual orientation, or social security number – except as required by law.

“This is a restriction that directly conflicts with Montana’s prohibition on sanctuary jurisdictions, specifically ‘sending to, receiving from, exchanging with, or maintaining for a federal, state, or local government entity information regarding a person’s citizenship or immigration status for a lawful purpose,’” the attorney general wrote.

If a government is found to be violating Montana’s law banning “sanctuary cities”, the state could fine them $10,000 every five days, prevent them from receiving new grants from the state, and have their projects with the state re-prioritized. A government in violation can avoid penalties by becoming compliant with the law within 14 days of being notified of the violation.

Read the full letter from the Montana Attorney General to the City of Helena:

Source link