Montana Law Challenged: ACLU Argues Bill Lets Lawmakers Control Court Venue
A new Montana law allowing bill sponsors to move legal challenges to their home county is facing a constitutional challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Montana, after Speaker of the Montana House of Representatives Brandon Ler used the law last week to attempt to relocate a case to his home court.
Senate Bill 97, passed by the 2025 Montana Legislature, permits sponsors of challenged legislation to move legal disputes to a district court in their own county, irrespective of where the case was initially filed. The law stipulates that lawmakers are not required to demonstrate any bias or provide a justification for the transfer, and judges are obligated to comply.
On Monday, the ACLU filed a brief with Broadwater County District Court Judge Michael Menahan, arguing the law is unconstitutional. The ACLU contends that SB 97 creates obstacles for those challenging laws and unfairly favors lawmakers. The challenge centers on a case brought by youth plaintiffs who allege that laws sponsored by Ler undermine environmental protections guaranteed by the Montana Constitution.
“SB 97 empowers the state and certain legislators to unilaterally shop certain lawsuits,” the ACLU filing stated. “Its aim is not subtle. It seeks to give private plaintiffs a burdensome and expensive climb when they challenge a new law, while seeking to give government defendants and legislative intervenors favorable terrain on which to defend such a challenge. This is the opposite of a law that promotes the appearance of neutral adjudication.”
The 2025 legislative session was dominated by Republicans, who held majorities in both chambers. A key theme for the GOP leadership was judicial reform, though ultimately only a limited number of related bills were signed into law, including SB 97. During legislative debate, Republicans openly acknowledged the potential for the law to create a more favorable legal environment for challenged legislation in certain districts.
The ACLU’s brief further argues that SB 97 violates the Montana Constitution by encroaching on the judiciary’s authority and infringing upon the equal protection clause by attempting to engineer favorable rulings. The ACLU points to a similar law passed in Kentucky that was subsequently struck down by the courts.
Testimony during the bill’s consideration revealed the motivations behind SB 97. Representative Greg Overstreet, R-Stevensville, stated that a court in Lewis and Clark County had an “uncanny record of striking down controversial statutes.” Senator John Fuller, R-Kalispell, explained his sponsorship of the bill was prompted by “the so-called social agendas or cultural agendas” that he believed led to constitutional challenges.
According to court documents, Fuller asserted that a judge in the sponsor’s home district would be more inclined to uphold a law due to shared beliefs with the politician and their “constituency.” When questioned by Senator Andrea Olson, D-Missoula, about why lawmakers should receive special judicial privileges, Fuller responded that there was no justification for requiring a court of original jurisdiction to be located in a different district.
The ACLU’s filing highlights that previous attempts by Montana lawmakers to disqualify judges, through legislation or executive action, have been consistently rejected by the Montana Supreme Court. The brief argues that the law presumes the inability of judges in other districts to fairly adjudicate cases.
The ACLU also contends that SB 97 potentially violates the Montana Constitution’s guarantee of open and accessible courts. The law could force plaintiffs to travel significant distances and incur substantial costs to pursue their cases, while simultaneously granting lawmakers preferential treatment. The ACLU further alleges that the law constitutes a content-based restriction on speech, as it treats individuals who challenge legislation differently based on their viewpoint.
Lawmakers who supported the bill reportedly acknowledged during debate that it could discourage individuals from challenging new legislation. The ACLU’s brief likened the law to “handing every craps dealer a pair of loaded dice,” arguing that it undermines the principle of fair adjudication.