Montana
Montana Supreme Court blocks ban on gender-affirming health care for minors
HELENA, Mont. — A Montana law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors will remain temporarily blocked, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, after justices agreed with a lower court judge who found the law likely violates the state’s constitutional right to privacy.
The case against the Montana law now goes to trial before District Court Judge Jason Marks in Missoula.
“I will never understand why my representatives are working to strip me of my rights and the rights of other transgender kids,” Phoebe Cross, a 17-year-old transgender boy and lead plaintiff, said in a statement. “Just living as a trans teenager is difficult enough, the last thing me and my peers need is to have our rights taken away.”
The attorney general’s office said it looks forward to defending the law, with a spokesperson noting there are recent scientific and legal developments that support lawmakers’ postion. This court decision comes as the British government on Wednesday banned puberty blockers for children with gender dysphoria, citing an unacceptable safety risk.
The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month heard arguments over Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers, hormones or surgery for transgender minors, with observers saying it appeared the justices were likely to uphold the ban. The Biden administration had sought to block similar bans that exist in more than half the states.
“Because Montana’s constitutional protections are even stronger than their federal counterparts, transgender youth in Montana can sleep easier tonight knowing that they can continue to thrive for now, without this looming threat hanging over their heads,” said Kell Olsen, an attorney for Lambda Legal.
Legislative debate over Montana’s bill drew national attention in the spring of 2023 after Republicans punished Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr — the first transgender woman elected to the state’s Legislature — for admonishing lawmakers who supported the bill.
Marks blocked the law late lasg year, just days before it was to take effect. He agreed with transgender young people, their families and health care providers that the law is likely unconstitutional and would harm the mental and physical health of minors with gender dysphoria, rather than protect them from experimental treatments, as supporters claim.
The judge noted the same Republican-controlled Legislature passed a law saying patients, including minors, have a right to receive treatment for other issues with experimental drugs — as long as it’s recommended by a health care provider and they give consent.
Marks said he could only conclude the Legislature’s stated intent in passing the law was “disingenuous,” and it seemed more likely its purpose is to “ban an outcome deemed undesirable by the Montana Legislature, veiled as protection for minors.”.
Montana is one of at least 26 states that have passed bans on gender-affirming medical care for minors and most face lawsuits. Some bans have been temporarily blocked by courts, while others have been allowed to take effect. Fifteen states have enacted protections for gender-affirming medical care for minors.
In Montana’s case, transgender youth argued the law would ban them from continuing to receive gender-affirming medical care, violating their constitutional rights to equal protection, the right to seek health care and the right to dignity. The state Supreme Court upheld the injunction based on the right to privacy.
Montana
Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case – Transnational Litigation Blog
Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act discourages forum shopping in child custody disputes by assigning subject-matter jurisdiction to the court located in the “home state” of the child. In Allen v. Allen, decided on April 21, 2026, the Montana Supreme Court had to determine whether the child’s “home state” was Montana or the Netherlands. This case shines an important spotlight on the importance of timing in international child custody disputes. The left-behind parent’s likelihood of success is strongly correlated with how quickly he or she acts to vindicate their legal rights.
Facts
Jonathan Edward Allen (Father) and Petronella Gerline (Van Oosterom) Allen (Mother) were married in Colorado in 2009. Father is a United States citizen. Mother is a dual citizen of the United States and the Netherlands. Their child (R.A.A.) was born in 2015. In 2020, the family moved from Colorado to Montana.
In August 2023, after Father and Mother began having marital difficulties, Mother and R.A.A. relocated to the Netherlands. In February 2024, Mother filed a petition for divorce and custody with the District Court of Central Netherlands (Netherlands District Court).
In January 2025, Father filed a petition with the District Court of The Hague seeking the return of R.A.A. pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. This petition was denied. Although the court held that R.A.A. had been wrongfully removed from the United States, the court reasoned that the one-year automatic return period had passed and that R.A.A. had become settled in her new environment in the Netherlands. This decision was affirmed on appeal.
In September 2025, Father filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Custody and Petition for Permanent Parenting Plan in Montana state court. That court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, it held that it lacked the power to adjudicate the dispute because Montana was no longer the “home state” of R.A.A. Father, acting pro se, appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.
Analysis
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) assigns exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction to courts located in the child’s “home state” when it comes to matters relating to child custody. The “home state” is “the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.” The UCCJEA specifically provides that courts “shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States” for purposes of resolving these disputes.
On the facts presented in Allen v. Allen, the Montana Supreme Court correctly held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Father’s emergency motion. Mother and R.A.A. relocated to the Netherlands in August 2023. Six months later—in February 2024—R.A.A.’s home state shifted to the Netherlands. The Dutch courts—rather than the Montana courts—now had exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve custody disputes involving R.A.A. Father did not file his motion in Montana until September 2025, which was nineteen months too late.
Conclusion
If Father had filed his suit in Montana before February 2024, he could have shown that Montana was R.A.A.’s “home state” because the child had not yet resided in the Netherlands for six months. The suit was, however, not filed until September 2025.
If Father had filed suit in the Netherlands before August 2024, he could have argued that R.A.A. should be returned to the United States pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction because the child had not yet resided in the Netherlands for a year. The suit was, however, not filed until January 2025.
The key takeaway of Allen v. Allen is the need for speed in international child custody cases. The timelines baked into the relevant laws and treaties mandate that the left-behind parent move quickly to assert their rights. If they are slow off the mark, they be forced to litigate in foreign courts under less favorable legal rules.
Montana
Clark Fork River remains central to Missoula’s identity, conservation groups say
MISSOULA, Mont. — The Clark Fork River has long been a defining feature of Missoula, shaping the city’s culture, economy and outdoor lifestyle.
The river is so closely tied to the area that it helped inspire the well-known book and film “A River Runs Through It.” But local conservation advocates say its importance goes far beyond scenery.
“Without the Clark Fork River, Missoula would just be another town,” said Lisa Ronald, Northern Rockies associate conservation director for American Rivers. “We wouldn’t be the River City. I think we’re known in Montana as Missoula the River City, and it’s really because of the Clark Fork River and its central role in business, in economics, in recreation, that really makes Missoula the town that it is.”
Carmen Murill, a field organizer with Wild Montana, said the river is deeply woven into daily life for people who live in Missoula.
“A lot of us would wonder what to do on a beautiful or a rainy summer day,” Murill said. “I mean, it’s really a lifeforce of town. And I think it’s pretty unique that Missoula, as a community is living and breathing on both sides of the river. It’s really like two downtowns but connected by the Clark Fork.”
Conservation groups say protecting the river begins with community involvement.
Advocates encourage residents and visitors to spend time outdoors, whether on a trail, in the woods or along the river, and to learn how they can become better stewards of the environment.
Montana
Forstag secures democratic nomination for Western Montana Congressional District
MISSOULA — Sam Forstag edged out Ryan Busse to secure the Democratic nomination in Montana’s 1st Congressional District.
Busse conceded the race to Forstag on Wednesday morning. Forstag had trailed behind Busse Tuesday evening, but he made up ground as the votes were counted into the early hours of Wednesday morning. The other two candidates in the race, Russl Cleveland and Matt Rains, are sitting at third and fourth, respectively.
Forstag leads in close race for Montana’s 1st Congressional District
Forstag spent eight years as a wildland firefighter, including four as a smokejumper, and he’s been vice president of the local National Federation of Federal Employees union. Last week, U.S. House of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, held a rally in Missoula to support Forstag’s campaign.
He told MTN on Tuesday that his campaign has been for the working class.
“We got a whole lot of people here that have been working their tail off to finally get some working-class representation in Washington,” Forstag noted. “So proud of everything we’ve done and so grateful.”
Forstag further noted he wants Montanans to be able to afford groceries, have universal free childcare and restore and expand Affordable Health Care Act subsidies.
“Hearing people’s stories and struggles and commonalities in the ways that we’re all fighting in the system that does not serve us so often, and the government serves corporations and the richest people in this country more than working people. It has been frustrating and saddening, but it has also inspired so much hope in me, like the fixes we can actually make,” he told MTN.
The 1st Congressional District covers much of western Montana, including Kalispell, Missoula, Butte and Bozeman. It is currently held by Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Montana, who chose not to seek reelection.
By securing the nomination, Forstag is slated tol face off against Libertarian candidate Nick Sheedy and Republican candidate Aaron Flint in November.
-
Minneapolis, MN4 minutes agoFOX 9 Good Day: June 4, 2026
-
Indianapolis, IN11 minutes agoChristian Rasmussen to remain with ECR in 2027 and beyond
-
Pittsburg, PA14 minutes agoPittsburgh Marathon organizers open registration for fall 10 Miler
-
Augusta, GA19 minutes agoSubject wanted for questioning in Augusta armed robbery
-
Washington, D.C26 minutes agoSEE IT: Ice cream truck catches fire in Southeast DC
-
Cleveland, OH29 minutes agoKucinich loses appeal in Browns lawsuit, will challenge ruling in Ohio Supreme Court
-
Austin, TX34 minutes agoTexas Pushes for USC Four-Star Recruiting Target Austin Attalah
-
Alabama41 minutes agoGovernor Ivey Approves Request for Alabama National Guard to Support America 250 Events in Nation’s Capital –