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
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.
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.
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
Sign up to receive the top interesting stories from in and around our community once daily in your inbox.
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.
“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.
“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?”
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.
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.
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
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.
-
Oregon4 minutes agoOregon DMV warns of fake texts threatening registration suspension unless you pay
-
Pennsylvania10 minutes agoCharles “Yami” Frederick Jamison, New Castle, PA
-
Rhode Island16 minutes agoRhode Island FC steals a point from Tampa Bay; Here’s how it happened
-
South-Carolina22 minutes agoClyburn says record speaks for itself, warns GOP to ‘be very careful what you pray for’
-
South Dakota28 minutes agoAfter Standing Rock, could a canceled mine project offer a roadmap for opponents of a new oil pipeline in South Dakota?
-
Tennessee34 minutes agoTennessee rowing wins first SEC championship in program history
-
Texas40 minutes agoGov. Abbott activates state emergency resources ahead of severe storm threat
-
Utah46 minutes agoProvo’s new Boys & Girls clubhouse gives Utah youth more space to learn, grow and belong