The majority of cases before the Montana Supreme Court are decided based upon the written briefs submitted by the parties. However, the Court may decide that a case requires further discussion, in addition to what the parties have argued in their written briefs. In such cases, oral arguments are scheduled in open session before the Court. Approximately 15 cases a year are scheduled for oral argument.
Oral arguments are tightly structured and timed. The counsel for each party is allowed limited time to make an argument. The times typically range from 20 to 40 minutes and are set forth by the Court in the order setting oral argument.
While this format allows the counsel brief opportunity to further develop their arguments, it also gives the Court an opportunity to ask questions of the attorneys on points which the Court needs clarification.
A majority of oral arguments take place in the Montana Supreme Court Courtroom, located at the Joseph P. Mazurek Building, 215 N. Sanders, Helena, Montana. These may be viewed via live web stream: http://stream.vision.net/MT-JUD/. The Court does schedule a few arguments to be heard in different cities around the State. See the list of scheduled oral arguments below.
All oral arguments are open to the public.
Click here to see list of previous oral arguments
MONTANA CONSERVATION VOTERS, JOSEPH LAFROMBOISE, NANCY HAMILTON, SIMON HARRIS, DONALD SEIFERT, DANIEL HOGAN, GEORGE STARK, LUKAS ILLION, and BOB BROWN, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CHRISTI JACOBSEN, in her official capacity as Montana Secretary of State, Defendant and Appellee, and SENATOR KEITH REGIER, Intervenor and Appellee. Oral Argument is set for Wednesday, February 11, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, in Helena.
In 2023, the Montana Legislature enacted SB 109, which created new boundaries for the five Public Service Commission seats. The plaintiffs sued, alleging the Legislature approved the map to favor Republican candidates and voters.
After a trial before the District Court with an advisory jury, the court denied the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory judgment. The court ruled that SB 109 did not violate either equal protection or the right of suffrage under the Montana Constitution.
The plaintiffs raise four issues on appeal. They argue the District Court erred in requiring them to prove that the Legislature intended to dilute non-Republican votes when it created the 2023 PSC map, applied an unduly deferential presumption that the Legislature acted in good faith in creating the map, erred in finding that the Legislature did not intentionally discriminate against non-Republican voters when it drew the map, and erred in finding an absolute legislative privilege prevented the plaintiffs from obtaining certain evidence via the discovery process.
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROBERT DAN FRENCH, Defendant and Appellant. Oral Argument is set for Wednesday, March 4, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, in Helena.
French was charged with two counts of sexual intercourse without consent and one count of sexual assault after three minors alleged he had touched them inappropriately. At trial, the youngest child testified that she did not remember what had happened. The State offered evidence that she had previously disclosed that French had had sexual contact with her. The State played video from a forensic interview in which the child stated French had put his penis in her mouth and demonstrated that she turned away and ducked her head to stop him. The State also presented evidence about the circumstances and timing of the child’s disclosure and testimony from the child’s parents, who each recounted how they reacted when the child informed them that something had occurred when she stayed at French’s home. French moved to dismiss the charge, arguing there was insufficient corroboration to support the child’s hearsay disclosures. The trial court denied the motion and the jury convicted him of all three sexual offenses.
On appeal, French argued the trial court should have dismissed the charge involving the youngest child. The Montana Supreme Court initially affirmed in a split decision but withdrew its opinion and set the case for oral argument after French petitioned for rehearing. French argues that the Court may not consider the child’s demeanor and physical demonstration at the forensic interview as corroborative evidence because her behavior during the interview constituted another prior inconsistent statement under Montana Rule of Evidence 801(a)(2). Because Montana law does not allow a conviction to be based solely on prior inconsistent statements, French argues that there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.
MAE NAN ELLINGSON, JEROME LOENDORF, ARLYNE REICHERT, HAL HARPER, BOB BROWN, EVAN BARRETT, C.B. PEARSON, CAROLE MACKIN, MARK MACKIN, and JONATHAN MOTL, Plaintiffs, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants, v. STATE OF MONTANA, GREG GIANFORTE, Governor of the State of Montana, AUSTIN KNUDSEN, Montana Attorney General, CHRISTI JACOBSEN, Secretary of State, Defendants, Appellants, and Cross-Appellees. Oral Argument is set for Friday, April 10, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in the Dennison Theatre, on the campus of the University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, with an introduction to the argument beginning at 9:30 a.m.
Senate Bill 93, enacted in 2023, made several revisions to the laws governing citizens’ preparation and submission of statewide ballot issues. A group of Montana citizens (Plaintiffs) filed a legal challenge to eleven of SB 93’s revisions, arguing the changes infringe upon Montanans’ constitutional powers of initiative and referendum.
The District Court agreed with Plaintiffs regarding four of the revisions they challenged but declined to award Plaintiffs their attorney fees. The Plaintiffs’ remaining claims were dismissed.
On appeal, the State argues that when a court is asked to consider the constitutionality of a law regulating the citizen initiative and referendum process, it should determine whether the requirements facilitate or impede Montanans’ initiative and referendum power. The State contends that the District Court instead wrongly analyzed the constitutionality of the challenged provisions by considering whether the ballot issue requirements exist on “equal footing” with the process the Legislature requires for its own bills.
On the merits, the State challenges the District Court’s rulings striking down the following provisions from SB 93: a $3,700 required filing fee for initiating the ballot issue process, which the Secretary of State may waive on a showing of hardship; a four-year bar on filing a ballot initiative that is substantially the same as a measure defeated by the voters; and a provision calling for a legislative committee to vote on a proposed initiative’s merits and place the results of the vote on the ballot petition.
Plaintiffs have cross-appealed, arguing the District Court erred in denying their request for attorney fees.