Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte on Thursday signed two bills restricting transgender Montanans’ access to public bathrooms and locker rooms and participation on athletic teams, sparking legal action from civil rights advocates against one of the new laws slated to go into effect immediately. 

The news came from the governor’s office via a press release in the early afternoon and an accompanying video posted to the social media platform X. There, Gianforte said the legislation would help “safeguard fairness, privacy, and security” in sports and public places.

“Over the last few years we’ve seen far-left gender ideology sweep the nation,” Gianforte said. “But here in Montana we’ve stood up against this radical agenda and maintained equal opportunity for all Americans while also protecting women and girls.”

House Bill 121, which affects public bathrooms, locker rooms and sleeping areas, in addition to those residing at domestic violence shelters, was written to take effect immediately upon being signed into law. House Bill 300, pertaining to student athletes in K-12 and university settings, is not slated to take effect until Oct. 1. 

An attorney for the ACLU of Montana said the organization filed a lawsuit Thursday afternoon against HB 121 on behalf of transgender and intersex plaintiffs. The same-day lawsuit was prompted by the law’s immediate effective date, the attorney said.

“This is yet another attempt to demonize and marginalize transgender Montanans and we won’t stand by idly,” said Alex Rate, the organization’s legal director.

Both bills saw broad support from legislative Republican lawmakers, reflecting how the issue of strict gender roles has become a cornerstone of the state and national GOP in recent years.

Gianforte’s Thursday announcement was lauded by national groups including the Alliance Defending Freedom and Independent Women’s Voice, which has advocated for similar gender bills in other states. 

Throughout committee hearings and debates, backers of both bills consistently sidestepped opponents’ allegations they intended to restrict the lives and expression of transgender people. Rather, supporters described cisgender women feeling uncomfortable or threatened when in close proximity to transgender people in vulnerable spaces, such as locker rooms and dormitories. 

Supporters also described the hypothetical situation of predatory, cisgender men masquerading as women for the purpose of invading public spaces, an argument that Democratic lawmakers and transgender opponents panned as disingenuous and fearmongering.

“We have trans people in our communities. We have trans people who are employees, who are students. We have trans people who face abuse and come to the shelter,” said Rep. Zooey Zephyr, D-Missoula, the first openly transgender woman to serve in the Montana Legislature, during a January debate over HB 121. “‘This is not an issue’ is what was said again and again by the people impacted on the ground.”

The plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit include two state employees, a political intern for the Montana Democratic Party who works at the state Capitol building, and an accessibility coordinator at Helena College, a public university, all of whom are transgender or do not identify as either gender. Another plaintiff is intersex and, because of his biological characteristics, does not know whether HB 121 classifies him as “male” or “female.” 

The law creates a route for legal action against any public facility — including jails, schools and government buildings — or domestic violence shelter that do not take steps to ensure that multi-user bathrooms or locker rooms are sex-segregated based on chromosomes and reproductive biology.

In court filings, attorneys for the ACLU of Montana said the law presents plaintiffs with impossible choices about how to navigate public spaces where they work, as well as public parks and libraries. 

“Discomfort with or dislike of transgender people cloaked as a privacy or safety concern is not a legitimate basis for imposing unequal or stigmatizing treatment,” attorneys wrote in the brief for a temporary restraining order. 

Rate added that the ACLU of Montana did not have an immediate plan to challenge HB 300, the prohibition on athletic participation, though he said the latter bill “suffers from the same constitutional infirmities” as the bathroom ban.

Lawmakers from both parties this session questioned how HB 300 is legally distinct from prior bills that sought to restrict student sports participation. A bill from 2021 was struck down as it applied to colleges and universities after a judge found it infringed on the role of the Montana Board of Regents. Another bill that sought to institute strict definitions of “sex” across Montana law was found unconstitutional in February based on equal protection and privacy violations. 

Supporters pointed out that HB 300 amends a broader, preexisting section of law that prohibits discrimination in education. They also said the policy is in line with the federal government’s stance on interpreting gender discrimination, an analysis that has flipped between the administrations of former Democratic President Joe Biden and current Republican President Donald Trump. The NCAA has also recently changed its protocols for transgender athlete participation, under pressure from the Trump administration, requiring participation to be based on sex assigned at birth.

In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education told Montana Free Press that it is anticipating minimal issues with complying with both laws.

“A preliminary review of campus bathroom facilities shows that minimal effort will bring our campuses into compliance,” said Galen Hollenbaugh, deputy commissioner for government relations and communications. 

Regarding HB 300, Hollenbaugh said, the Montana Board of Regents policy requires the Montana University System to “comply with NCAA regulations.” 

“Following a presidential Executive Order, the NCAA has revised the relevant regulations regarding trans athletes, neutralizing any MUS compliance issues with HB 300,” Hollenbaugh said.

In a surprising twist, a federal judge has ruled in favor of a California couple fighting orders to destroy their stunning, half-built cabin within a Montana national park, allowing them to keep the property intact.

John and Stacy Ambler’s half-built abyss, located on a 2,300-square-foot slab of land near McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park, has been at risk of demolition ever since several residents filed complaints with the Flathead Conservation District (FCD), SFGate reported.

After several back-and-forth lawsuits, federal judge Kathleen DeSoto ruled in favor of the San Diego couple in February, asserting that the FCD has no jurisdiction over the property, as it is located within a national park and therefore, falls under federal jurisdiction. 

However, in the latest chapter of the ongoing battle, both the FCD and Friends of Montana Streams and Rivers have filed an appeal, arguing that they have a case to reverse the judge’s decision.

‘Flathead Conservation District has a statutory duty to protect the natural resources within our district,’ Samantha Tappenbeck, a district resource conservationist, told SFGate.

‘So, the Flathead Conservation District Board of Supervisors decided to appeal the decision in service to the constituents of our district, and because the board felt that there were appealable issues.’ 

The Amblers’ began building their three-story, lush Montana home in late 2022 and early 2023, where they laid a concrete retaining wall into the steambank and installed rock footers into the bank to build a deck. 

Yet the couple’s construction project kickstarted local drama, as residents of the West Glacier area complained that the home was clearly visible to both park visitors and neighbors alike, the Flathead Beacon reported.

In a surprising twist, a federal judge has ruled in favor of a California couple fighting orders from two Montana organizations to destroy their stunning cabin, allowing them to keep the property intact

After several back-and-forth lawsuits, federal judge Kathleen DeSoto ruled in favor of the San Diego couple in February, asserting that the FCD has no jurisdiction over the property, as it is located within a national park and therefore, falls under federal jurisdiction

The complaints caught the attention of the FCD, who then preformed an onsite inspection of the Ambler home.

Following the inspection, the district claimed that the couple had violated the state’s Natural Steambed and Land Preservation Act (NSLPA), better known as the 310 law.

Their reasoning was based on the belief that the home had been illegally constructed without any of the necessary permits. 

The 310 law states that any private individual or entity proposing work in or near a stream that ‘physically alters or modifies the bed or immediate banks of a perennial-flowing stream’ must obtain approved permits from the local conservation district, the Flathead Beacon reported. 

However, the couple claim they were given permission by Flathead County’s Planning Office, which told them they could do ‘whatever they wanted with the land without restriction’ as the land is in an un-zoned area, according to Hungry Horse News.

The Park Service, a federal organization, did allow the Amblers to connect to the Apgar water and sewer systems. 

Nevertheless, the District’s Board of Supervisors ultimately ruled that the couple must tear down the half-built home and repair the steambed before April 1, 2024.

However, the couple instead filed lawsuits in both state and federal courts, arguing that the District abused its authority.

Both the FCD and Friends of Montana Streams and Rivers have filed an appeal, arguing that they have a case to reverse the judge’s decision

The Amblers’ began building their three-story, lush Montana home in late 2022 and early 2023, where they laid a concrete retaining wall into the steambank and installed rock footers into the bank to build a deck

The couple’s construction project kickstarted local drama, as residents of the West Glacier area complained that the home was clearly visible to both park visitors and neighbors alike which prompted an onsite inspection conducted by the FCD

The California natives don’t believe the District has any jurisdiction over their land and property because it’s located inside the national park and is on an inholding, which is private land that predates the creations of the park in 1910.

They also claim the property is apart of Apgar, a small, private village in the park that was created in 1908.

The District accused the Amblers’ of trying to find the gray area, as they claimed Montana has no jurisdiction over the plot of land because it’s inside a national park, which is federally protected, but also claimed the feds don’t have access because it’s on private land. 

However, the District claimed that state and local laws still pertain to private land, regardless of where it is located, including in Glacier National Park. 

The couple, however, argued Montana gave the rights to the land to the US when they handed over the land, which ‘cedes jurisdiction,’ their lawyer Trent Baker said, according to Hungry Horse News. 

The core of the organization’s arguments is that the home’s location within the boundaries of Glacier National Park does not exempt it from adhering to Montana’s state laws, particularly the Montana Natural Streambed and Land Protection Act (NSLPA). 

On the contrary, the couple argued that the Steambed Act was not passed until 1976, and therefore Montana’s state laws could not be recognized federally, according to SFGate. 

The couple also said that the national park is the entity to govern private inholdings, stating that the FCD ‘cannot unilaterally reassert jurisdiction over lands to which the State of Montana long ago ceded jurisdiction to the United States,’ Flathead Beacon reported.

Following the inspection, the district, which enforces the state’s Natural Steambed and Land Preservation Act (NSLPA), or better known as the 310 law, stated that the couple had violated the law – their reason being the home illegally being constructed without any of the necessary permits

The San Diego couple believes the District lacks jurisdiction over their land and property because it’s located inside the national park and is on an inholding – which is private land that predates the creations of the park in 1910 – and instead filed lawsuits in both state and federal courts

Advertisement

Samantha Tappenbeck, a district resource conservationist, told SFGate in regards to the appeal: ‘Flathead Conservation District has a statutory duty to protect the natural resources within our district’

In Desoto’s order, she wrote that the arguments ‘go beyond the scope of the sole claim asserted in the complaint… that FCD lacks jurisdiction over the Ambler property, and that the Streambed Act does not apply’

‘The only issue in this case is federal versus state jurisdiction over the Amblers’ property,’ Trent Baker, the pair’s attorney, wrote in the summary judgement, according to the outlet.

In Desoto’s order, she wrote that the arguments ‘go beyond the scope of the sole claim asserted in the complaint… that FCD lacks jurisdiction over the Ambler property, and that the Streambed Act does not apply.’ 

For the appeals to proceed in court, attorneys from both organizations must submit their briefs by May 28.

Officials of Glacier National Park have previously said they were working with the US Department of the Interior attorneys to determine whether they will join the suit, SFGate reported.

The Amblers’ did not immediately respond to DailyMail.com for comment. 

It’s a breezy afternoon, and Keegan Nashan is standing on a county road in Clyde Park, Montana, yelling at golfers: “No one wants you here, even if they’re smiling while they’re serving you.” With the aim of further annoying them, she’s set up bluetooth speakers that blare “Rednecker Than You” on auto-replay.

These are no ordinary golfers. They are individuals who have paid seven figures to join the ultra-elite Crazy Mountain Ranch, an invitation-only club that promises an experience that “truly embodies the nature & spirit of Montana.”

Nashan, 31, was born and raised in Livingston, a small town near Bozeman. She’s watched for decades as out-of-state investors have acquired public and private lands and developed them into gated communities and exclusive resorts for some of the richest people in the world.

It began, in 1997, with the Yellowstone Club, a “mountain sanctuary” where billionaires ski, golf and build 8,000 square foot second, third, and fourth homes. The land rush has continued apace, with Boston-based Cross Harbor Capital Partners purchasing the18,000-acre Crazy Mountain Ranch in 2021.

“Cross Harbor basically owns Big Sky,” Nashan told me. “I’m worried for the culture of this place.” (Big Sky is an unincorporated area bordering Bozeman that, by Nashan’s count, boasts at least 30 private ranches or high-end resorts).

She’s right to worry. Montana is a checkerboard of public lands surrounded by private parcels. Prior to the luxury development boom, most private landowners allowed public access to adjacent public lands. But today, many of those trails are obstructed with locked gates and “no trespassing” signs. Longtime residents, who trace their roots back five generations (for Crow Indians, even longer), are suddenly unable to enter the places they’ve walked, hunted, fished, foraged, and prayed in their whole lives.

Kal Munis, a political scientist at Auburn University, spent his childhood on the public lands of western Montana, sometimes for fun, sometimes out of necessity. “When the mine [where his father worked] shut down, we suddenly had to get our dinner from the creeks and the hills.” To this day, Munis says, it’s not uncommon for working-class Montanans to provide for themselves by hunting and fishing on public lands. When their access is suddenly blocked, that is no small problem.

Sustenance aside, families like Munis’s didn’t take vacations to Disneyland; their leisure time was spent picking huckleberries, camping, and fishing on public lands and on private ranches whose longtime owners customarily allowed locals access. Today, many of those ranches have been sold off to resort developers and wealthy urbanites eager to live the Montana dream… in seclusion. “These places become the king’s forest, and the commoners don’t get to go in the king’s forest,” Munis says.

What most Americans probably don’t even realize (including me until I looked it up last week) is this: Forty percent of the United States is public land with even higher proportions in Montana and several other Western states. Federal land cannot be sold off—at least, not easily—but there’s nothing to stop it from being encircled by private parcels that keep the public out. , Meanwhile, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, a real estate magnate whose net worth has been estimated at $100 million, has suggested opening up federal lands to fossil fuel extraction—or selling them off altogether.

Montana state legislator Jane Weber worries that the Trump administration will turn federal public lands over to the state of Montana and that those lands will eventually be sold off to private developers. Weber, a forester by profession, says the state lacks the funds and expertise to manage vast tracts of land for wildfire and logging. She predicts that, once the state belatedly concedes its incompetence, it will sell the land to wealthy outsiders, “and we the public are going to lose our land.”

Weber also worries about the loss of grazing and farmland, as private ranches adjacent to national forests are bought and converted into private hunting grounds. Between 2017 and 2022, 10 percent of the state’s farms and ranches disappeared. 93 percent of those farms were family owned and operated. Given the volume of grains, beef, oilseeds, and legumes Montana supplies the nation, this trend is something that ought to concern everyone.

Weber bemoans the irony of Montana being gentrified by affluent urbanites charmed by the state’s beauty and lifestyle—only to start demanding upscale housing and amenities upon arrival. A prime example is The Ranch at Rock Creek, a once-upon-a-time working cattle ranch that now invites guests to “channel the pioneer spirit that encouraged our homesteaders to ascend the next peak.” In addition to their $6,500 a night stay in a tricked-out horse stable, guests can pay $300 for a “Sapphire hydration wrap,” just like ye olde homesteaders used to enjoy.

As gentrification and gentri-vacation drives up housing costs and transforms the culture, locals are plenty mad.