Montana
On second thought: Montana Supreme Court decides not to give attorneys' fees to groups • Daily Montanan
As tensions between two of three Montana branches of government continue to simmer, the Montana Supreme Court reconsidered its position on awarding attorneys’ fees in a case of unconstitutional laws brought by the 2021 Legislature. And, it essentially overturned itself, this time agreeing not to award attorneys’ fees.
It is a rare example of the state’s highest court rehearing a matter it had decided, and late last week, the court fractured into at least four distinct camps on the case, which not only dealt with attorneys’ fees, but also examined the powers of the the Montana University System Board of Regents and the Montana Legislature.
The group consisted of 15 people or groups, including the Montana Federation of Public Employees, the state’s largest union, the Faculty Senate of Montana State University and Mae Nan Ellingson, one of the living original members of the 1972 Constitutional Convention. They had originally sued for a declaration that House Bill 349, 112, 102 and portion of Senate Bill 319 were illegal. They all dealt with higher education in some form, although those bills, which have been struck down, were not the basis of the Supreme Court decisions.
The new decision comes as Montana Senate Republicans launch a committee that is looking at ways to reshape the state’s judiciary. A similar committee was convened in 2021 by Republican leaders in the Legislature, and was the topic of heated political disagreements as the Republicans charged the state’s courts were both opaque and overstepping their boundaries. Meanwhile, Democrats defended the courts, saying they were simply doing their job, evaluating new laws against the state’s Constitution.
The new committee is comprised of Republican lawmakers, and Democrats have vowed to boycott the proceedings.
On Friday, the Montana Supreme Court changed course and decided against awarding attorneys’ fees to groups that brought a suit contending that four bills violated the Montana Constitution. All three of the bills were struck down by a Gallatin County District Court judge, and some of the court’s decision was appealed. However, upon re-examination, the Supreme Court sided with the district court that the Legislature’s actions had overstepped the constitutional provision that gives the Montana University Board of Regents administrative and policy power over the public universities and colleges.
Much of the Supreme Court’s very divided opinion didn’t deal with the subjects of the lawmakers’ bills, which were found to be unconstitutional; rather the high court pivoted to whether a group of university students and professors had the power to bring the lawsuit, and whether they were entitled to recouping attorneys’ fees.
When the Supreme Court originally decided the case, it overturned district court Judge Rienne McElyea’s decision not to award attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court previously argued that because the district court had said the laws were brought in bad faith, meaning the Legislature should have known they violated the Constitution, the groups’ were entitled to attorneys’ fees.
However, upon reconsideration, the Supreme Court was unable to come to enough of a consensus to obtain agreement on the issue of attorneys’ fees, so McElyea’s original decision stands; that means the groups will no longer get attorney’s fees from the state.
On second thought…
The Supreme Court’s decision was one of the more complex decisions, with justices agreeing and disagreeing with each other simultaneously. Five of the seven justices said the groups that originally filed the lawsuit had legal standing to do so.
Meanwhile, Justices Jim Rice and Dirk Sandefur disagreed, in part, saying that the lawsuit should have been brought by the Montana University Board of Regents because they are charged, by the Montana Constitution, with oversight and administration of the university system. They reasoned that if laws passed by the Legislature were problematic, it should have been the regents who responded.
Other justices said that because university students, staff and professors would be affected by the laws that they had legal standing to bring the lawsuit.
“The Board (of Regents)’s failure to initially challenge the subject legislation for whatever reason and its intervening prolonged inaction overwhelmingly demonstrate the necessity for private enforcement,” said Justice Ingrid Gustafson, who wrote parts of the opinion. “The actual student plaintiffs here, who were threatened with actual discrimination, cannot be forced to wait indefinitely for the board to assert its own independence.”
Arguably the most consequential portion of the ruling centered on the issue of attorneys’ fees. Ultimately, the high court ruled that while Montana state law allows attorneys’ fees to be awarded to groups or individuals that successfully sue the government for unconstitutional laws, under a legal theory known as the “private attorney general doctrine,” those fees are discretionary, not mandatory.
The court then reconsidered the findings of McElyea, and some justices reasoned that while there were several points that could have triggered an attorneys’ fees award, it was discretionary so the finding of lower court should be upheld.
However, in the opinion written by Justice Gustafson, and joined by Laurie McKinnon, both said that they still found that not only had the Legislature acted in bad faith when passing the laws, but that it could be argued that the Board of Regents should have fought back against the Legislature’s encroachment on their authority. Furthermore, the groups should be awarded the attorneys’ fees for essentially having to do someone else’s job.
“While we need not make a judicial determination of bad faith in this case, there are indications where one could question whether the state was not entirely acting in good faith by defending all of the bills at issue here. One such indication is that the state did not even brief any merits defense for two of the three challenged bills after the district court declared them unconstitutional. Yet the state, in its zeal to impose unconstitutional legislative enactments against the board and the Montana University System, continue to assert the plaintiffs could not even bring the claim against those laws the state concedes are unconstitutional.”
They also argued that the groups should be awarded attorneys’ fees for actually vindicating rights found in the Montana Constitution, namely those of the Board of Regents’ and its authority over the university system.
“Attorney fees are proper because of the process through which the unconstitutional bills came to be: Patently unconstitutional bills adopted through the willful disregard of constitutional obligation,” the Gustafson-McKinnon opinion said. “Assessing fees when plaintiffs successfully challenge legislation which came about through such unconstitutional means may serve to deter wrongdoing in the first place.”
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Mike McGrath and Justices Beth Baker and James Jeremiah Shea said that while the court could have awarded attorneys fees, that there are many factors that could have triggered the award, and the court would not second-guess the district court because the award is not mandatory.
“As noted by the district court, there was an independent entity of state government here who could have enforced its constitutional authority — the Board of Regents. The board is often willing and able to defend its constitutional authority. Plaintiffs here did not make the necessary showing that the board was unwilling or able, for whatever reason, to challenge these laws,” McGrath wrote.
Finally, Sandefur and Rice didn’t discuss the merits of the case or attorneys’ fees because they argued that the group shouldn’t have legal standing in the case, and that the only group with standing was the Board of Regents.
“Such decisions are inherent to the ‘full power, responsibility, and authority to supervise, coordinate, manage and control the Montana University System,’ and necessarily should be made exclusively by the board itself, not by an amorphous group of surrogates,” said Rice and Sandefur.
Reversal attorneys fees
Montana
Planning For Life After Coal Cost a Montana County Commissioner His Seat – Inside Climate News
Robert Pancratz couldn’t believe it.
The Musselshell County commissioner had been defeated in the Republican primary for his seat by a two-to-one margin earlier this month. Mark Olson, who lives in Musselshell and serves as the undersheriff in Golden Valley County, won by 26 percentage points.
“That just blew me away,” Pancratz said. “All of my campaign, I had not a hint that there was that much opposition.”
At stake, from Pancratz’s perspective, is the fiscal future of his community, which includes Roundup, Montana, home to Montana’s only longwall coal mine. The mine, owned and operated by Signal Peak Energy, sits on the eastern side of the continental divide in a staunchly conservative part of the state, where its presence provides jobs and its profits generate taxable revenue for local governments. (The vast majority of its coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, goes to markets in Asia.)
But that revenue could potentially be diminished by tens of millions, according to calculations by Pancratz, if a bill introduced by U.S. Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., passes Congress. The Crow Revenue Act would convey federally held coal to Signal Peak through a land transfer to a private intermediary, depriving Musselshell County of its share of the taxes Signal Peak Energy pays to mine coal on federal land.
If the Crow Revenue Act does not pass Congress, Signal Peak says it could be forced to shut down if it loses a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana challenging the “energy emergency” the Trump administration used to grant the mine access to federal coal. That outcome would wipe out all the mine’s tax revenue and hundreds of jobs, the company claims. This month’s election hinged on Pancratz’s position on the bill and, by extension, the mine.
Musselshell County’s three commissioners, Mike Goffena, Mike Turley and Pancratz support keeping the mine open. But they also fear Musselshell County would need to raise taxes and cut services to balance its books if the Crow Revenue Act passes as written. After studying the county’s finances, Pancratz, who works as a risk analyst consultant, concluded that the county could lose as much as $11.6 million if the Crow Revenue Act passes and the price of coal is high. The commissioners have lobbied for changes to the bill that would guarantee the county some revenue from the land transfer.
Pancratz says he was just doing his job.
“As a risk manager, I have to develop a contingency plan for the possibility that the long-term stream of coal revenue could be disrupted or ended,” he said. “We needed to have a plan to effectively transition to other revenue sources. When I used the word transition, they took that as I was an environmentalist that was against coal.”
“Why anybody would have a problem with that is baffling to me. But that’s what happened.”
According to Pancratz, Signal Peak Energy branded the men as environmentalists who want to see the company shut down forever and this willful mischaracterization played a large role in his defeat.
“The picture they painted of me was totally false,” he said.
In a recording of a commissioner meeting posted to a local Facebook group by a Signal Peak Energy employee less than a month before the election, Pancratz, Goffena and Turley can be heard strategizing how to express their concerns about the Crow Revenue Act to Daines, whom they describe as unresponsive to their concerns.
Pancratz suggests asking for a $100 million endowment to transition from coal to “scare” Daines and Signal Peak Energy. Turley states that with funding at that level, they wouldn’t care if the mine was open or not.
“Exactly,” Pancratz responded.
Comments on the video show viewers expressing outrage that the commissioners would “play chicken” with the future of the mine, which provides hundreds of jobs in the surrounding area.
This story is funded by readers like you.
Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.
Donate Now
Pancratz said the conversation was recorded without the commissioners’ knowledge. Montana is a two-party consent state, meaning all parties must be aware of and consent to a recording, but he allowed that it was possible one of the commissioners forgot to close a virtual public meeting after it concluded.
Pancratz said the conversation occurred when the commissioners found out there would be no money in the Crow Revenue Act for the county. The bill’s supporters, including Signal Peak Energy, had told them that the county would not lose any revenue under the bill, he said.
“We were upset because we felt we’d been lied to,” Pancratz said.
Signal Peak Energy did not respond to a written message and phone call seeking comment. For a time after Signal Peak took over the mine in the late 2000s, it was plagued by malfeasance, including embezzlement, a faked kidnapping and safety and environmental violations, according to reporting by The New York Times.
Olson said he entered the race due to a “lack of transparency” from the commissioners over how the county was spending its money.
But the mine played a role in his decision to run, too. As he was weighing his options, Olson said his cousin, Alan Olson, a former state legislator and former executive director of the Montana Petroleum Association, visited him and urged him to run to support the mine. After that conversation, he was convinced the mine’s survival depended on the Crow Revenue Act passing, and that trying to amend it would jeopardize the legislation.
“The more money we can get for the county, the better, but I don’t think it’s worth risking the mine closing,” Olson said. Losing federal revenue was better than losing all the jobs and the tax base if the mine closes, he concluded.
Olson added that Parker Phipps, Signal Peak Energy’s CEO, has briefed him on the mine’s fiscal relationship with Musselshell County.
Olson’s background in law enforcement could add a new perspective to the county commissioner meetings, given Goffena and Turley’s background in ranching, he said, but the minutiae of the county’s budget will be new to him.
“I am by no means an expert in any of this stuff,” he said.
Some worry that, with the mine facing a lawsuit, an unpredictable global coal market and the uncertain future of the Crow Revenue Act, the commissioners cannot afford to lose momentum in their efforts to attract new industries to the area.
Olson’s win in the primary will “set [economic diversification planning] back long term,” Nicole Borner, a former Musselshell County commissioner, who thinks Olson was hand-picked by the Signal Peak Energy to run and is not informed about what the job entails.
“We will always just have a few crumbs to duct tape a few issues,” she said. “We’ll never be able to fix the prior forty years of being in a coal bust and our infrastructure just literally falling apart.”
Olson will likely run unopposed in the general election.
In his remaining time in office, Pancratz said he will continue to push for economic diversification in Musselshell County. He holds no animosity towards Olson, who calls Pancratz “a wonderful guy.” Instead, he laments not addressing concerns over his position on the mine sooner in the campaign. But he believes Signal Peak Energy’s political and social influence—the company operates a charity in the region—is what swayed the election.
“You can’t say anything that even remotely implies that you’re trying to prepare the county for the possibility that coal revenue may not be steady or high … There’s this attitude that the county is in debt to that coal mine. And the message I tried to get out is, it’s more the reverse,” Pancratz said.
“I personally don’t believe the mine really cares about the county.”
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
Jake Bolster
Reporter, Wyoming and the West
Jake Bolster reports on Wyoming and the West for Inside Climate News. Previously, he worked as a freelancer, covering climate change, energy, and the environment across the United States. He holds a Masters in Journalism from Columbia University.
The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.
Here’s a look at June 19, 2026, results for each game:
Winning Mega Millions numbers from June 19 drawing
13-16-21-26-50, Mega Ball: 12
Check Mega Millions payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from June 19 drawing
05-12-14-30, Bonus: 03
Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from June 19 drawing
02-20-28-51-54, Bonus: 02
Check Millionaire for Life 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.
- 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.
Montana
Montana State doctoral student awarded national research service grant for gut microbiome, arsenic research
-
Arizona2 minutes agoTroopers arrest ‘LARPer’ who was running late for competition in northern Arizona
-
Arkansas5 minutes agoJoshua Harris tackles “American Ninja Warrior” and Arkansas health problems
-
California10 minutes agoSmoke advisory issued Saturday as Boyle Heights fire continues
-
Colorado17 minutes agoSouthern Colorado man launches community wildflower project
-
Connecticut20 minutes agoWNBA photo gallery: Toronto Tempo @ Connecticut Sun – 6/19/26
-
Delaware25 minutes agoState Police Issues Sex Offender Notifications – Delaware State Police – State of Delaware
-
Florida32 minutes ago11 Most Charming Towns In Florida
-
Georgia40 minutes agoDemocrats block local property tax referendums as Georgia lawmakers clash over affordability – The Current
