Montana

Law firm asks judge to compel Gianforte, Brereton to produce communications – Daily Montanan

Published

2 years ago

January 20, 2024

Law firm asks judge to compel Gianforte, Brereton to produce communications – Daily Montanan

Attorneys for a Helena law firm have asked for summary judgment in a lawsuit against Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte and Department of Public Health and Human Services Director Charlie Brereton in an effort to compel them to produce records the firm requested but have been denied over claims of executive and attorney-client privilege.

Upper Seven Law asked Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Christopher Abbott to grant its request in a filing Thursday, which came three months after the firm first sued Gianforte and Brereton in an attempt to obtain the records.

“The governor believes that holding the highest office in the state insulates him from the Montana Constitution’s transparency provision,” said Upper Seven Law Executive Director Rylee Sommers-Flanagan. “But the power of this office is precisely what the framers contemplated when they guaranteed Montanans a right to know. The governor’s policy decisions go to the heart of his service to Montana.”

The law firm in August asked the Governor’s Office and DPHHS for correspondence involving Gianforte’s General Counsel Anita Milanovich that referenced Senate Bill 458, a bill Gianforte signed that defines Montanans’ sexes as either male or female only, or SF-424 forms, which some state departments are required to fill out when applying for federal grants.

The form requires applicants to attest they will follow federal laws and standards, including anti-discrimination laws.

The firm specifically asked that the records custodian exclude communications directly from Milanovich to Gianforte and didn’t ask for emails exchanged with Brereton to try to avoid attorney-client privilege claims, according to court filings.

Upper Seven Law was looking for the communications because the firm was preparing to possibly sue over SB 458 (it did so in October) and had learned from social media posts that Milanovich had possibly “instructed Montana agencies to refuse to assure compliance with federal nondiscrimination law,” according to the lawsuit.

But the legal counsel for the Office of Public Information Requests denied the firm’s request, saying executive privilege had been asserted and that there were possibly documents that would be covered by attorney-client privilege. The governor is appealing a 2022 decision out of Lewis and Clark County District Court in which a judge ordered Gianforte to release records requested about bill tracking in the 2021 legislative session.

“We are aware that executive privilege is the subject of litigation and will reconsider this response if necessary on the final resolution with the Montana Supreme Court,” Office of Public Information Requests legal counsel Rebecca Narmore wrote, according to exhibits contained in the lawsuit.

DPHHS also denied the request on claims of executive and attorney-client privilege.

When the firm sued in October, it said the Governor’s Office and DPHHS had not provided any redacted documents or privilege logs — a list of records it considers private — and there was thus no way they could know if the documents were truly privileged or being withheld illegally on executive privilege claims the firm says do not exist under Montana law.

Three months later, the firm says nothing has changed, and Gianforte and Brereton continue to violate the public’s right to know under the state constitution.

The firm asked Judge Abbott to order they provide the court with the documents requested in camera so he can review them and see if any are truly covered under attorney-client privilege. It also asked him to order the two to produce a privilege log for any privileged documents and to provide any that are not covered to the firm.

In the request for summary judgment this week, the firm again asserted there is no executive privilege in Montana, that attorney-client privilege only shields legal advice between an attorney and their client and not all communications between them, and that even if there are privileged records, Gianforte and Brereton’s offices need to provide a privilege log or redacted responsive records under the law.

The request says the 1972 Constitutional framers did not contemplate any sort of executive privilege and the same court has recently upheld that notion, saying if there was executive privilege, it would be unclear whether any documents involving the Governor’s Office could be subject to the right to know.

“While the attorney-client privilege could theoretically protect a responsive email or a portion of the contents of the withheld communications, that possibility does not justify Defendants’ outright refusal to respond to Upper Seven’s requests and concomitant failure to produce a privilege log and redacted documents,” the filing says. “Twice in the last year, this Court has ordered that the executive branch must produce privilege logs in response to right to know requests.”

It also notes that lawmakers passed a bill in the 2023 session that further clarified how public information requests must be fulfilled, including procedures for the executive branch.

“Without a privilege log — or even a recognition that attorney-client privilege is distinct from the rejected executive privilege — it is impossible to know whether any of the requested documents may be shielded from disclosure,” Upper Seven Law attorneys wrote in Thursday’s request. “It is exceedingly unlikely that the requested documents are privileged.”

The law firm said that state agencies’ decisions not to comply with federal antidiscrimination law would also be a political decision and not legal advice, and that the right to know as it applies to the executive branch would be gutted if everything subject to potential future legal action triggered attorney-client privilege.

“The governor and DPHHS cannot withhold documents merely because they were produced by lawyers or discuss the law,” the filing says. “Here, the purpose of any guidance regarding SF-424 forms was to further the executive branch’s policies on discrimination — not to provide privileged legal advice.”

DPHHS and the Governor’s Office have said regarding the case that it does not comment on pending litigation.

In addition to the request that Abbott order a review of the documents and their release, the law firm has asked for a hearing in the event Abbott rules in their favor to ask for attorney’s fees.

2024-01-18 – SF-424 Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgement – FILED

Source link

Click to comment

Montana

Montana pediatrician group pushes back against CDC vaccine changes

Published

5 hours ago

January 9, 2026

Press Room

Montana pediatrician group pushes back against CDC vaccine changes

This story is excerpted from the MT Lowdown, a weekly newsletter digest containing original reporting and analysis published every Friday.

On Monday, Jan. 5, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced it would downgrade six vaccines on the routine schedule for childhood immunizations. The changes scale back recommendations for hepatitis A and B, influenza, rotavirus, RSV and meningococcal disease.

That decision — shared by top officials at the federal Department of Health and Human Services — took many public health experts by surprise, in part because of how the administration of President Donald Trump departed from the CDC’s typical process for changing childhood vaccine recommendations.

Montana Free Press spoke to Atty Moriarty, a Missoula-based pediatrician and president of the Montana Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, about her perspective on the CDC’s changes. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

MTFP: What happened in this most recent change and how does that differ from the CDC’s normal process for adjusting childhood vaccination schedules?

Moriarty: The way that vaccines have traditionally been recommended in the past is that vaccines were developed, and then they traditionally went through a formal vetting process before going to the [CDC]’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, which did a full review of the safety data, the efficacy data, and then made recommendations based on that. Since November 2025, that committee has completely been changed and is not a panel of experts, but it is a panel of political appointees that don’t have expertise in public health, let alone infectious disease or immunology. So now, this decision was made purely based unilaterally on opinion and not on any new data or evidence-based medicine.

MTFP: Can you walk through some of the administration’s stated reasons for these changes?

Moriarty: To be honest, these changes are so nonsensical that it’s really hard. There’s a lot of concern in the new administration and in the Department of Health and Human Services and the CDC that we are giving too many immunizations. That, again, is not based on any kind of data or science. And there’s a lot of publicity surrounding the number of vaccines as compared to 30 years ago, and questioning why we give so many. The answer to that is fairly simple. It’s because science has evolved enough that we actually can prevent more diseases. Now, some comparisons have been made to other countries, specifically Denmark, that do not give as many vaccines, but also are a completely different public health landscape and population than the United States and have a completely different public health system in general than we do.

MTFP: Where is the American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] getting its guidance from now, if not ACIP?

Moriarty: We really started to separate with the [CDC’s] vaccine recommendations earlier in 2025. So as soon as they stopped recommending the COVID vaccine, that’s when [AAP] published our vaccine schedule that we have published for the last 45 years, but it’s the first time that it differed from the CDC’s. We continue to advocate for immunizations as a public health measure for families and kids, and are using the previous immunization schedule. And that schedule can be found on the [AAP’s] healthychildren.org website.

MTFP: Do any of the recent vaccine scheduling changes concern you more than others?

Moriarty: I think that any pediatrician will tell you that 20-30 years ago, hospitals were completely full of babies with rotavirus infection. That is an infection that is a gastrointestinal disease and causes severe dehydration in babies. I’m nervous about that coming roaring back because babies die of dehydration. It’s one of the top reasons they’re admitted to the hospital. I’m nervous about their recommendation against the flu vaccine. [The U.S. is] in one of the worst flu outbreaks we’ve ever seen currently right now and have had many children die already this season.

MTFP: Do you think, though, that hearing this changed guidance from the Trump administration will change some families’ minds about what vaccines they’ll elect to get for their children?

Moriarty: Oh, absolutely. We saw that before this recommendation. I mean, social media is such a scary place to get medical information, and [listening to] talking heads on the news is just really not an effective way to find medical information, but we see people getting it all the time. I meet families in the hospital that make decisions for their kids based on TikTok. So I think that one of the effects of this is going to be to sow more distrust in the public health infrastructure that we have in the United States that has kept our country healthy.

LATEST STORIES

Former judge-elect sentenced to probation in drug case

A Lake County attorney who was elected judge but resigned before even taking the bench was sentenced to three years of probation in the very courtroom he was once going to oversee.

Group refiles corporate political spending ban days after court setback

The Transparent Election Initiative, an anti-dark money group, filed with the Montana Secretary of State two ballot initiatives that aim to prevent corporate political spending. The filing came just two days after the state Supreme Court found an earlier version of the initiative legally insufficient.

Source link

Montana

Montana Lottery Lucky For Life, Big Sky Bonus results for Jan. 8, 2026

Published

17 hours ago

January 9, 2026

Press Room

The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big. Here’s a look at Jan. 8, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Lucky For Life numbers from Jan. 8 drawing

05-12-13-39-48, Lucky Ball: 13

Check Lucky For Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from Jan. 8 drawing

05-15-20-28, Bonus: 16

Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?

Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.

Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.

Winning lottery numbers are sponsored by Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network.

Where can you buy lottery tickets?

Tickets can be purchased in person at gas stations, convenience stores and grocery stores. Some airport terminals may also sell lottery tickets.

You can also order tickets online through Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network, in these U.S. states and territories: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., and West Virginia. The Jackpocket app allows you to pick your lottery game and numbers, place your order, see your ticket and collect your winnings all using your phone or home computer.

Jackpocket is the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network. Gannett may earn revenue for audience referrals to Jackpocket services. GAMBLING PROBLEM? CALL 1-800-GAMBLER, Call 877-8-HOPENY/text HOPENY (467369) (NY). 18+ (19+ in NE, 21+ in AZ). Physically present where Jackpocket operates. Jackpocket is not affiliated with any State Lottery. Eligibility Restrictions apply. Void where prohibited. Terms: jackpocket.com/tos.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Source link

Montana

Montana minimum wage increases to $10.85 | Explore Big Sky

Published

1 day ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Montana minimum wage increases to .85 | Explore Big Sky

By Micah Drew DAILY MONTANAN

With the start of the new year, Montanans on the lowest end of the pay scale will get a small boost as the state’s mandatory minimum wage increase goes into effect.

As of Jan. 1, Montana’s minimum wage increased from $10.55 to $10.85.

Stemming from a 2006 law, Montana’s minimum wage is subject to a cost-of-living adjustment, based on the national increase in the consumer price index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

According to state law, Montana businesses not covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act are those whose gross annual sales are $110,000 or less may pay $4 per hour.

Montana is one of 30 states — plus Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands — that have a minimum wage higher than the federal rate of $7.25.

Twelve states, plus D.C. adjust their wages annually based on set formulas.

Montana has one of the lowest minimum wages that exceeds federal levels, with only West Virginia coming in lower among states at $8.75. The highest minimum wage is in D.C., at $17.25.

Source link