Montana
Ninth Circuit narrows wolf trapping ban in Montana griz territory

Alanna Mayham
(CN) — An order limiting wolf trapping and snaring in Montana’s grizzly bear territory survived the scrutiny of a Ninth Circuit panel Tuesday, but the question of how much land a federal judge can restrict to protect the state’s threatened grizzlies from wolf traps remains.
In January, a three-judge panel took a skeptical view of a 2023 injunction that prohibited wolf trapping in a broad swath of western Montana outside of the narrow timeframe of Jan. 1 to Feb. 15 annually, or when grizzlies are most likely to be hibernating in dens.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy’s preliminary injunction was aimed at protecting grizzlies from wolf traps — an issue opponents say is becoming more common because the warming climate is pushing bears to forage later into the winter and even earlier in the spring.
But Molloy’s order prohibited trapping in a much larger part of Montana than what conservation groups requested and did not follow the state’s scientific determination of where grizzly bears live.
On Tuesday, two-thirds of the panel affirmed Molloy’s injunction because the plaintiff organizations — Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force and WildEarth Guardians — demonstrated that Montana’s recreational wolf trapping and snaring regulations would harm grizzly bears in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
“Under our limited and deferential standard of review, we affirm the district court’s grant of injunctive relief,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennet, a Donald Trump appointee, with the concurrence of U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik, a Bill Clinton appointee.
Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman partially dissented, explaining that he would have vacated the entire injunction because the plaintiffs’ evidence falls short of proving that irreparable harm is likely — not just possible.
“While I agree with the majority that plaintiffs established a serious question on the merits, the evidence of record establishes that plaintiffs failed to show a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to grizzly bears should Montana’s wolf regulations remain in force,” the Clinton appointee wrote.
Tallman also argued that the plaintiffs’ evidence is too speculative to warrant an injunction, particularly regarding how climate change affects grizzly denning habits and the plaintiffs’ lack of verified reports of grizzly bears getting caught in recreational wolf traps after 2013.
The other judges disagreed.
“As the district court pointed out, one of plaintiffs’ experts declared that ‘only 12% of unpermitted grizzly bear killings are actually reported,’ and that the ‘data shows that trappers who find grizzly bears in their traps are highly unlikely to call a government agent,’” Lasnik wrote.
Lasnik added how Montana’s evidence showed that over 25% of grizzly bear killings go unreported, suggesting that verified reports are not the best indicator of how often grizzlies are trapped.
All three judges could agree that the injunction is geographically overbroad.
“The district court enjoined wolf trapping and snaring ‘in all areas included in wolf regions one through five, plus Hill, Blaine and Phillips counties,’” Lasnik wrote. “That comprises what appears to be more than half of the entire state of Montana and includes expansive areas outside the occupied grizzly range and even some areas east of Billings — areas that plaintiffs did not even ask to be covered by the injunction.”
The panel also took up Montana’s argument of how the injunction prohibits state researchers from trapping and snaring wolves in the summer for scientific purposes — even though the injunction never prevented that.
On March 19, Montana filed an unopposed motion to modify the injunction so it could allow the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and other management agencies to trap wolves for scientific and livestock conflict management purposes. Molloy denied the request on March 25, explaining that such agencies already had the authority to perform research trapping and they were unaffected by the injunction.
“Apparently the Ninth Circuit wasn’t aware of that,” said Mike Bader of Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot in an interview.
Bader also noted how Tallman in his dissent did not acknowledge a permanent injunction from U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale in March that banned all wolf trapping and snaring in Idaho’s panhandle, Clearwater, Salmon and Upper Snake regions between March 1 and Nov. 30 — the grizzly bear’s non-denning season.
“She actually cited the Molloy injunction ruling as an influence on her ruling, so we hope we can get a permanent injunction because then we would have common law in the Ninth Circuit from both Idaho and Montana,” Bader said.
And that hope might not be far from reality, especially since Molloy’s injunction will stay in place until he adjusts the geographic scope of the order. Bader said a final ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment could arrive within the next few months and that a favorable outcome would also prohibit coyote traps in grizzly territories.
“I think the big issue is climate change,” Bader said, adding how states rely on outdated data for grizzly denning behaviors.
“Especially this past winter, we had reports of females with cubs out in January and a lot of bears out well into December and even past Christmas,” Bader said. “So, the old dates really don’t apply because of the change.”

Montana
Montana Supreme Court upholds landmark youth climate ruling

Montana’s Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s decision that had sided with 16 young activists who argued that the state violated their right to a clean environment.
The lawsuit was brought by students arguing that a state law banning the consideration of climate when choosing energy policy was unconstitutional.
In a 6-to-1 ruling, the top court found that the plaintiffs, between ages five and 22, had a “fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment”.
Wednesday’s ruling came after a district court’s decision last year was appealed by the state. Similar climate lawsuits are ongoing across the US but this is first of its kind a from a state supreme court.
The lawsuit targeted a 2011 state law that made it illegal for environmental reviews to consider climate impacts when deciding on new projects, like building new power plants.
It cited a 50-year-old constitutional clause that guaranteed the “state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations”.
The ruling on Wednesday stated that the “plaintiffs showed at trial – without dispute – that climate change is harming Montana’s environmental life support system now and with increasing severity for the foreseeable future” .
Rikki Held, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that “this ruling is a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change”.
Montana state officials expressed disappointment with the court’s decision.
Governor Greg Gianforte said his office was still assessing the ruling, but predicted the impact would be “perpetual lawsuits that will waste taxpayer dollars and drive up energy bills for hardworking Montanans”.
Western Environmental Law Center, which represented the young plaintiffs, said in a statement that the decision marks “a turning point in Montana’s energy policy”.
It said plaintiffs and their legal team “are committed to ensuring the full implementation of the ruling”.
Similar cases are scheduled to be heard in several other states, including Hawaii, Utah and Alaska, as well as in countries like Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Colombia and Uganda.
Montana
Montana Supreme Court affirms decision in landmark youth climate case

What’s New
The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday affirmed a landmark climate decision that declared the state was violating residents’ constitutional right to a clean environment by allowing oil, gas and coal projects without regard for global warming.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces an August 2023 ruling by District Court Judge Kathy Seeley, who found that Montana’s practices violated its residents’ constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment.”
This pivotal case, spearheaded by a group of young plaintiffs aged 6 to 23, represented a milestone for climate advocates seeking judicial intervention to compel governmental action on climate change.
What To Know
On Wednesday in a 6-1 ruling, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the August 2023 decision.
The court’s decision strikes down a state policy that prohibited the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in granting permits for fossil fuel development.
The state had previously appealed the ruling by Seeley, and arguments were heard in July, in which the state argued that greenhouse gases released from Montana fossil fuel projects are minuscule on a global scale and reducing them would have no effect on climate change.
Thom Bridge/Independent Record/ AP
Chief Justice Mike McGrath dismissed the state’s argument that Montana’s emissions are insignificant on a global scale, likening the defense to an “everyone else is doing it” excuse.
McGrath wrote, “The right to a clean and healthful environment is meaningless if the State abdicates its responsibility to protect it.”
What Are People Saying
Melissa Hornbein, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center and attorney for the plaintiffs said, “With the ruling now in place, the Montana Supreme Court’s decision compels the state to carefully assess the greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts of all future fossil fuel permits.”
Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote for the majority: “Plaintiffs may enforce their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment against the State, which owes them that affirmative duty, without requiring everyone else to stop jumping off bridges or adding fuel to the fire. Otherwise the right to a clean and healthful environment is meaningless.”
Republican Governor Greg Gianforte said in a statement that the state was still reviewing the decision, but said it will lead to “perpetual lawsuits that will waste taxpayer dollars and drive up energy bills for hardworking Montanans.
Pushback From State Leadership
The ruling has sparked a backlash from Gianforte, who criticized the court for what he described as judicial overreach. He warned the decision could invite an onslaught of lawsuits, increase energy costs for Montanans and hinder the state’s “all-of-the-above” energy strategy.
“This Court continues to step outside of its lane to tread on the right of the Legislature, the elected representatives of the people, to make policy,” he said in a statement. “This decision does nothing more than declare open season on Montana’s all-of-the-above approach to energy, which is key to providing affordable and reliable energy to homes, schools, and businesses across our state.”
Gianforte also convened energy stakeholders earlier this week to discuss boosting production to meet rising demand, emphasizing the need for “unleashing American energy” to maintain grid stability.
The Plaintiffs’ Perspective
For the 16 young plaintiffs, the court’s decision validates their personal struggles with the tangible effects of climate change. In a Wednesday statement, lead plaintiff Rikki Held called the ruling “a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change.”
During the trial, the plaintiffs described how worsening wildfires, droughts and diminishing snowpack have disrupted their lives, polluted the air and depleted vital natural resources. They argued that the state’s failure to address these challenges imperils their future and violates their constitutional rights.
What Happens Next
The ruling has positioned Montana as a flashpoint in the national debate over climate accountability, potentially inspiring similar legal challenges across the United States.
This article includes reporting from The Associated Press.
Montana
Pregnant woman claims Montana Highway Patrol wrongfully arrested her for DUI

BOZEMAN — A pregnant woman from Sheridan is claiming she was wrongfully arrested by the Montana Highway Patrol (MHP) for allegedly driving under the influence during a traffic stop near Bozeman.
“I was just pretty shocked. And I constantly told him I’m pregnant, and I haven’t drunk in probably eight months,” says Alyssa Johnson.
Alyssa is a photographer from Sheridan who, at 22 weeks pregnant, was pulled over by an MHP trooper on Dec. 1, 2024 for an alleged traffic violation.
“I have a stutter, and he thought I was slurring so he pretty much said can you step out of the car. Made me do all these kinds of tests,” says Alyssa.
Alyssa explains that she has severe dyslexia, which makes understanding directions, and completing any sort of test, difficult.
“I mean, Alyssa, when she was in school, she used to have extra time to take an exam and she’d have questions read to her,” explains Alyssa’s husband, Tim Johnson.
Alyssa says in addition to her mental handicap, she was in a state of panic during the traffic stop—affecting her ability to give a proper breathalyzer result.
“They were saying that since I couldn’t breathe through the breathalyzer and the testing wasn’t doing good, they arrested me and pretty much took me to the hospital for more blood work,” she says.
A written statement by her therapist confirms Alyssa’s dyslexia diagnosis.
And after the incident, the couple got a third-party blood test—because the one conducted by law enforcement could take up to eight weeks to return.
The blood test, provided by the Johnsons, shows negative for any type of drug.
Alyssa says, “I take a prenatal, an aspirin for my blood pressure, and stuff for my heartburn, like Tums. Just like simple stuff.”
Tim explains that in addition to expecting their second child, they’re currently building a home—making the cost of bail and towing a hard hit on finances.
He says, “We have a budget to stick to and the budget doesn’t include any unexpected costs like this.”
Tim says this is an opportunity for police to receive better training on mental impairments and hopes that charges will be dropped from Alyssa’s record.
“And I understand they have to do their job too. I mean, support police. But this wasn’t right to do,” she says.
The couple says they have filed a formal complaint with MHP.
I reached out to MHP for comment but did not receive a response regarding the incident. We will update this story if we hear back.
-
Business1 week ago
OpenAI's controversial Sora is finally launching today. Will it truly disrupt Hollywood?
-
Politics6 days ago
Canadian premier threatens to cut off energy imports to US if Trump imposes tariff on country
-
Technology7 days ago
Inside the launch — and future — of ChatGPT
-
Technology5 days ago
OpenAI cofounder Ilya Sutskever says the way AI is built is about to change
-
Politics5 days ago
U.S. Supreme Court will decide if oil industry may sue to block California's zero-emissions goal
-
Technology5 days ago
Meta asks the US government to block OpenAI’s switch to a for-profit
-
Politics6 days ago
Conservative group debuts major ad buy in key senators' states as 'soft appeal' for Hegseth, Gabbard, Patel
-
Business3 days ago
Freddie Freeman's World Series walk-off grand slam baseball sells at auction for $1.56 million