Montana

Montana judge blocks rule that prevented transgender people from changing sex on docs

Published

1 year ago

December 17, 2024

Montana judge blocks rule that prevented transgender people from changing sex on docs

HELENA, Mont. — A state judge in Montana has temporarily blocked policies that prevented transgender people from changing the sex designation on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses.

District Judge Mike Menahan issued his order Monday, blocking the rule while the case moves through the courts.

Menahan said it was not necessary at this point in the litigation to determine whether transgender Montanans constitute a special class on the basis of their transgender status, but he disagreed with the state’s argument that discrimination on the basis of transgender status is not discrimination on the basis of sex.

“If the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate on the basis of sex,” he wrote.

The case was filed in April by two transgender women on behalf of themselves and others who have been unable to obtain documents “that accurately reflect their sex,” the complaint said.

One rule in the state blocks transgender people born in Montana from changing the sex designation on their birth certificate. Another policy prevents transgender residents from changing the sex on their driver’s licenses without an amended birth certificate — which they can’t obtain if they were born in Montana.

Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, who was born in Montana, said in a statement Tuesday that she was frustrated that while “being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be,” Montana “wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male.”

Birth certificates and driver’s licenses are needed to apply for a marriage license, a passport, to vote or even to buy a hunting license, Alex Rate, legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, argued last month. Each time a transgender person is required to produce a document that does not accurately reflect their sex, they are forced to “out” themselves as transgender.

The state had argued that sex is binary, either male or female, and that being transgender is not a protected class of people who could have their constitutional rights to privacy violated.

“The right to privacy does not include a right to replace an objective fact of biological sex on a government document,” Assistant Attorney General Alwyn Lansing argued for the state.

The state attorney general’s office, which oversees the motor vehicle division, and state health department, which issues birth certificates, did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.

The hearing was the latest volley in a series of laws, rules and legal challenges over efforts by Republicans in Montana and many other states to limit the rights of transgender residents. The state has used various justifications in banning changes to identifying documents, including needing accurate statistical records or saying someone’s biological sex cannot be changed even though someone’s gender identity can.

“The state cannot articulate any legitimate interest in restricting access to accurate identity documents, much less a compelling one,” Rate said during the hearing.

In late 2017, under Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock, the state health department implemented a rule allowing people to change the sex on their birth certificate by signing an affidavit.

In 2021, Montana’s Republican-controlled Legislature and Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte implemented a law saying transgender people could not change the sex on their birth certificate without having undergone surgery. That law was declared unconstitutionally vague because it did not specify what surgery was required. The state was ordered to return to the 2017 rule.

However, in response, the health department — now under Republican leadership — passed a rule saying nobody can change the sex on their birth certificate unless it was to fix a clerical error.

Montana’s Legislature in 2023 passed a law defining the word “sex” in state law as being only male or female and based upon a person’s sex assigned at birth. That law defining “sex” was overturned as unconstitutional because its title did not accurately explain its purpose, but the ACLU argues the state is still using it to set policy with regard to driver’s licenses.

The ACLU asked Judge Menahan to temporarily block the rule and policy and order the state to restore the 2017 rule that allowed transgender people to change the sex designation on their birth certificate by filing an affidavit.

Menahan’s order blocked the 2022 health department rule on birth certificates and the motor vehicle division policy that prevented people from changing the sex on their driver’s license without an amended birth certificate. He also blocked the bill that defined sex as only male or female as it applied to birth certificates and driver’s licenses.

Montana is one of seven states that did not allow people to change the sex on their birth certificate. Twenty-five states do allow it, including 15 that offer an option to list male, female or X. A dozen states allow birth certificate changes following gender-affirming surgical procedures, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an advocacy and information organization.

Thirty states allow people to change their sex on their driver’s license. Montana is among 16 states with what the Movement Advancement Project calls a “burdensome process.” Four states do not allow a person to change their sex on their driver’s license.

Source link

Related Topics:116868597 article discrimination Featured gender General news government policy Human Rights Politics Privacy Sex and sexuality U.S. News®

Click to comment

Montana

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Published

11 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.

Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:

The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….

There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:

While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.

The Missoulan article includes this response:

In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.
“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”

As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”May his example profit others,” in the Falen translation.

Thanks to Matthew Monforton for the pointer.

Source link

Montana

Your guide to local sports events, plus what’s on TV

Published

23 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Your guide to local sports events, plus what’s on TV

State

Zip Code

Country

Source link

Montana

Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026

Published

1 day ago

March 1, 2026

Press Room

Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026

HELENA — You probably have goals and plans for 2026—the Montana Department of Agriculture does too.

“We’re really focusing on innovative agricultural practices,” Montana Department of Agriculture director Jillien Streit said.

It’s no secret that agriculture—farming and ranching—is not easy. There are long days, planning, monitoring crops and livestock, and other challenges beyond farmers’ and ranchers’ control.

(WATCH: Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026)

Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026

“We have very low commodity prices across the board,” Streit said. “We still have very high input prices across the board, and we have really high prices when it comes to our equipment, and so, it’s a really tough year.”

But innovation, including new practices, partnerships and technology use, can help navigate some of those challenges.

“We can’t make more time and we can’t make more land, so we need to start putting together innovative practices that help us maximize what our time and land can do,” Streit said.

Practices range from using technology like autonomous tractors and virtual fencing—allowing rangers to contain and move cattle right from their phones—to regenerative farming and ranching.

“It is bringing cattle back into farming operations to be able to work with cover cropping practices to invigorate the soil for new soil health benefits,” Streit said.

The Montana Department of Agriculture is working to help producers learn, share, and collaborate on new ideas to work in their operations.

The department will share stories of practices that work from farms and ranches across the state. Also, within the next year or so, Streit said the department is hoping to roll out technology to help producers collaborate.

“(It’s) providing a communication platform where people can get together and really help each other out by utilizing each other’s assets,” she said.

While not easy, agriculture is still one of Montana’s largest industries, and Streit said innovating and sharing ideas across the state can keep it going long into the future.

Source link