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
CITY OF KALISPELL, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SEAN MICHAEL DOMAN, Defendant and Appellant. Oral Argument is set for Wednesday, October 1, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, in Helena.
In July 2022, Doman was riding his bicycle in Kalispell when he came upon a traffic stop in progress. He stopped on the sidewalk and began to record the traffic stop with his cellphone. The officer conducting the stop requested backup because of Doman’s presence. Another officer arrived at the scene and ordered Doman to move away from the stopped vehicle. Doman moved, but the officer directed him to move further, and Doman protested. The officer then took Doman’s phone and put it on the ground. Doman picked up his phone and advised the officer he would “sue the fuck out of [him].” The officer directed Doman to “keep moving.” Doman and the officer argued over whether Doman was sufficiently distant from the traffic stop. Doman called the officer a “tyrant” and the officer then placed Doman under arrest for obstructing a peace officer.
Doman moved to dismiss the charge, arguing there was no evidence that he knowingly hindered the traffic stop. The Municipal Court denied the motion and the District Court affirmed the denial. Doman was later convicted after a jury trial.
On appeal to the Montana Supreme Court, Doman argues that his recording did not interfere with the traffic stop, he never refused to comply with the officer’s orders, and calling the officer a “tyrant” was protected speech under the First Amendment and could not be used as a basis for arrest and criminal charges. Doman further argues that the law prohibiting obstruction of a peace officer is unconstitutional as applied to him because he was acting within his First Amendment right to record the traffic stop in a public space and he never used or threatened to use violence or force against the officers. The State argues that Doman did not preserve the constitutional arguments for appeal and that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of obstructing.
WILD MONTANA and MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, Petitioners and Appellees, MONTANA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GREG GIANFORTE, in his official capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, and CHRISTI JACOBSEN, in her official capacity as SECRETARY OF STATE, Respondents and Appellants. Oral Argument is set for September 12, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., at the Delta Hotels Helena Colonial, Helena, Montana, with an introduction to the oral argument beginning at 9:00 a.m.
Live-streamed through the Court’s website at: Livestream
On May 2, 2023, Governor Gianforte vetoed SB 442. The Senate adjourned sine die the same day without having received the veto. Secretary of State Jacobsen refused to conduct an “override poll” of the Legislature, stating she had not received the veto. Wild Montana, Montana Wildlife Federation, and Montana Association of Counties later sought, and obtained, writs of mandamus from the District Court, compelling the Governor to transmit his veto to the Secretary and the Secretary to conduct the override poll.
The Governor and the Secretary appealed to the Montana Supreme Court and requested that the writs be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. After the motions to stay were denied, the Secretary conducted the override poll while the appeal was pending. The Legislature did not override the Governor’s veto and SB 442 did not become law.
The Governor and the Secretary allege that justiciable issues remain in this appeal because the District Court erred in issuing the writs. They argue the unusual timing of the veto and the sine die adjournment fell into a “procedural gap” in the veto provisions that raised a nonjusticiable political question, the Petitioner-Appellees did not have standing to raise the issue, and the Governor’s veto procedure was correct. However, the Appellees ask this Court to dismiss this appeal as moot, arguing no effective relief is available to the Appellants. In the meantime, the 2025 Legislature passed amendments to the veto procedure statute, SB 344; at the Court’s request, the parties submitted additional briefs to address whether the new amendments affect the outcome of this appeal.