Connect with us

Montana

MT Supreme Court rules laws, including one on transgender athletes, violate Board of Regents' authority

Published

on

MT Supreme Court rules laws, including one on transgender athletes, violate Board of Regents' authority


HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling that found three bills from the 2021 state legislative session overstepped onto the authority of the Montana University System Board of Regents.

The most prominent of the bills was House Bill 112, which banned transgender female athletes at public schools from participating in women’s sports. A majority of justices agreed that bill was unconstitutional as applied to colleges and universities.

In addition to HB 112, the court also ruled against:

· House Bill 349, which limited how colleges and universities could discipline students for certain speech and when they can deny recognition to student organizations.
· A section of Senate Bill 319 that would have required student organizations that also function as political committees – specifically the advocacy group MontPIRG – to be funded through a fee that students can pay if they opt in, instead of one they are required to pay unless they opt out.

Advertisement

A large group of individuals and organizations filed suit over these bills. In their arguments, the plaintiffs made the case that the Montana Constitution gives the Board of Regents full authority to oversee the state’s university system, and that the bills infringed on that authority. In 2022, a district judge in Gallatin County sided with the plaintiffs.

Attorneys for the state argued the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to challenge the laws. On HB 112 specifically, they said the law was not targeting the Board of Regents or universities specifically, and that the board had not established a policy on transgender athletes.

Justice Ingrid Gustafson wrote in her ruling – joined by Chief Justice Mike McGrath and Justices Laurie McKinnon and Jim Shea – that the plaintiffs had established standing by showing they would be harmed by the bills, and that they could make the argument the bills unconstitutionally infringed on the Board’s authority even if the Board itself did not sue.

Gustafson said the Board of Regents had essentially expressed a judgment on how to handle transgender athletes by linking participation to NCAA and NAIA requirements. She said HB 112 does address elementary and high schools as well as colleges and universities, but that didn’t mean it wasn’t infringing on the Board.

“The Legislature cannot avoid Article X, § 9’s grant of power to the Board by simply adding non-MUS institutions to the law,” she wrote.

Advertisement

Gustafson also said, because the state had focused its arguments on stating HB 112 was not unconstitutional, they had essentially conceded on the other two bills, so the district court’s ruling against them should stand. The state said they centered their defense on the merits on HB 112 for briefing reasons, not because they were conceding the other bills were unconstitutional.

While four out of seven justices agreed to find the bills unconstitutional, they were split on whether the plaintiffs were entitled to receive attorney fees from the state. The district judge had ruled against the plaintiffs’ request. Because a majority of justices didn’t agree fees were warranted, that decision remained in place.

Justice Jim Rice wrote a dissenting opinion, in which he argued the plaintiffs did not have standing in the case and that only the Board of Regents itself should have had the authority to file suit claiming an infringement of its authority. Justice Dirk Sandefur agreed with Rice, but added his own short opinion saying that, if the plaintiffs did have standing, he would agree that the bills were unconstitutional as the majority had ruled.

Read the justices’ full opinions below:

Advertisement





Source link

Montana

Montana Vista residents question impacts of proposed Pecos West energy project

Published

on

Montana Vista residents question impacts of proposed Pecos West energy project


EL PASO, Texas (KFOX14/CBS4) — A proposed high-voltage transmission project in far East El Paso is raising concerns among residents in the Montana Vista area, as developers work to determine a potential route that could impact private property.

The project, known as Pecos West, is being developed by Grid United and would create a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line connecting El Paso to southeastern New Mexico.

According to the company, the goal is to link major parts of the U.S. electric grid, specifically the Western and Eastern interconnections, allowing electricity to move in both directions between regions. Developers say the project could strengthen energy reliability, expand access to power markets, and help prevent outages during extreme weather.

Grid United also describes Pecos West as a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure investment that could bring jobs, tax revenue, and long-term economic benefits to communities along the route.

Advertisement

However, for residents in Montana Vista, the immediate concern is not the long-term benefits, but what the project could mean for their land.

At a community meeting Saturday morning, several residents were able to voice their concern, telling KFOX14/CBS4 they feel they have not received enough information about the project’s path or timeline, especially as discussions about a preliminary route continue.

“We haven’t got anything from you,” said Armando Rodriguez, president of the Montana Vista Landowners. “Not one quote.”

Others echoed concerns about communication, calling on the company to directly notify homeowners who may be affected.

“You need to go to these houses, give people information, and say this could affect you,” one resident said.

Grid United says the project is still in the planning and development phase, and no final route has been approved.

The company says construction would only begin after securing regulatory approvals and negotiating land agreements with property owners.

Advertisement

Company representatives also emphasized that landowner participation is voluntary.

“Pecos does not have eminent domain,” said Alexis Marquez, community relations manager for the project. “If a landowner does not want it on their property, we would look at alternate routes.”

Developers say outreach will continue as planning progresses, but residents are asking for more direct communication now, especially those who believe they could be directly impacted.

The project is not expected to be completed anytime soon, with Grid United estimating that Pecos West could become operational in the mid-2030s if approved.

For now, the conversation in Montana Vista reflects a familiar tension seen in large infrastructure project, balancing long-term regional benefits with local concerns about transparency, property, and community impact.

RECOMMENDED: Circle K: Diesel mistakenly delivered into premium gas tank at El Paso Zaragoza Road store

Advertisement

Sign up to receive the top interesting stories from in and around our community once daily in your inbox.



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Montana Vista residents confront ‘Pecos West’ developers in tense meeting

Published

on

Montana Vista residents confront ‘Pecos West’ developers in tense meeting


EL PASO, Texas (KTSM) —  Following widespread neighborhood concerns first reported by KTSM 9 News on Friday, residents of the Montana Vista area came face-to-face with developers of the proposed “Pecos West” transmission line project on Saturday morning, May 9 during a community meeting held at the Montana Vista Community Center.

The multi-million dollar project, spearheaded by power grid developer Grid United, aims to build a massive transmission line connecting the El Paso area to southeastern New Mexico.

While developers tout the project as a crucial link to prevent grid bottlenecks, families living in the path of the proposed line continue to voice mounting frustration and distrust over how the land acquisition is being handled.

On Friday, Grid United released a statement to KTSM insisting their one-on-one land negotiations were conducted out of respect for private property rights. But at Saturday’s community gathering, residents and advocates made it clear they aren’t buying it.

Advertisement

“People are afraid. I’m not afraid. I’m angry,” said Armando Rodriguez, president of the Union of Montana Vista Landowners, who previously said that developers had been quietly approaching his neighbors for months with varying buyout offers.

Only about a dozen residents and advocates attended the weekend meeting, but they loudly questioned why the company spent the past year approaching landowners individually rather than addressing the community as a whole. 

During the exchange, project officials admitted they have already acquired about 50 percent of the properties in the impacted area. Grid United later clarified to KTSM that the exact number fluctuates frequently, just like the proposed route.

Community organizers argued that the company’s isolated approach leaves residents vulnerable and misinformed.

“When a company like this turns up and says, ‘We’re going to buy your property.’ We must ensure that community members understand that they have the right to say no, or that they have the right to negotiate a higher value,” said Veronica Carbajal, an organizer with the Sembrando Esperanza Coalition.

Carbajal highlighted that the lack of widespread notification and a standardized compensation formula is creating deep unease.

Advertisement

“They’ve already bought properties, but they have not established notification to every resident that will be impacted, nor have they set up a formula for compensation,” Carbajal said. “So what we can see online through the title transfers is that there is a very wide distinction between how much people are being paid. We don’t want the community to be divided. We also want people to understand that this is voluntary. They do not have to sell if they don’t want to.”

A major point of contention at Saturday’s meeting was the threat of eminent domain. Grid United explained that, as a private company, they do not possess eminent domain authority, insisting that if a landowner refuses to sell, the company will simply find an alternative route.

“At Pecos West we’re very landowner-first approach,” said Alexis Marquez, Pecos West community relations manager. “So if a landowner does not want (the transmission line) on the property, then we would find alternative routes.”

But Rodriguez remains highly skeptical that the developers would simply walk away from targeted plots.

“A corporation as big as you, a multi-million dollar corporation, I find it hard to believe that you would invest money into something this big and just walk away if the family said, ‘No, I don’t want to sell it,’” Rodriguez told officials during the meeting. “The question is: Are you really serious about what you’re saying here? Or is this just another dog and pony show?”

Advertisement

Project leaders conceded they need to adjust their efforts in engaging and informing the community, promising more meetings to come. However, residents emphasized that trust is currently broken and will only be rebuilt with concrete action.

El Paso County Commissioner Jackie Butler, who helped organize the meeting, said the County has no power to halt the proposed project, but she said she has been communicating with project officials and is trying to connect them with community advocacy organizations. 

“I learned very quickly that the County does not have any authority or permitting process to stop these kinds of projects. And so that’s when I started connecting Pecos West to community members so that they could get directly involved,” Butler said. “My questions to Pecos West have been, Why do you have to come through our community? And even if you have to build through our region, you should go around it.” 

Moving forward, the residents in attendance made it clear they do not intend to sell their property. They are demanding Grid United bring all impacted neighbors to the table as a collective before any more land is purchased.

If the project continues to move forward, construction is not expected to begin until the mid-2030s.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Montana Lottery Mega Millions, Big Sky Bonus results for May 8, 2026

Published

on


The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at May 8, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Mega Millions numbers from May 8 drawing

37-47-49-51-58, Mega Ball: 16

Check Mega Millions payouts and previous drawings here.

Advertisement

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from May 8 drawing

09-14-18-20, Bonus: 16

Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from May 8 drawing

14-16-21-43-51, Bonus: 03

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

Advertisement

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.
  • Millionaire for Life: 9:15 p.m. MT daily.

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

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

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending