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.