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://youtube.com/channel/UCZISYUyhlnST7YrRIfu-p9g/live. 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
BOARDWALK PROPERTIES, INC., MICHAEL DELANEY, and ILEANA INDRELAND, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE OF MONTANA and MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendants and Appellees. Oral Argument is set for Thursday, October 29, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, in Helena.
In 1998, the Montana Department of Revenue granted the Appellants a Resort Area designation on land they owned near Bozeman. Since then, the Appellants have invested millions of dollars improving the Resort Area, with plans to further develop vacant spaces within the property. However, in 2021, the Montana Legislature amended the statutes governing Resort Area designations, including placing restrictions on liquor licenses, that negatively impacted the benefits the Appellants enjoyed by having their property designated a Resort Area.
The Appellants sued the State and the Department of Revenue. The Appellants asked the court to enjoin the Department of Revenue from enforcing the 2021 statutes against the Resort Area. The District Court granted summary judgment in the State’s favor, concluding that a resort area designation is a privilege, not a right that has constitutional protections.
The Supreme Court asks the parties to address three questions at oral argument: (1) Are the 2021 amendments to the Montana Alcoholic Beverage Code, with respect to Resort Areas, unconstitutional retroactive legislation as applied to Appellants? (2) Did Appellants acquire a vested constitutionally protected right because of the State’s approval of the Resort Area Application and subsequent investment of millions of dollars pursual to that approval? (3) Was the 2021 Amendment a Taking as applied to Appellants?
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BRIAN EDWARD HECK, Defendant and Appellee. Oral Argument is set for Wednesday, October 7, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. at the Copper King Hotel and Convention Center in Butte, Montana, with an introduction to the argument beginning at 9:30 a.m.
Brian Heck was charged with patronizing prostitution, allegedly for arranging to meet “Destiny” for sexual intercourse in exchange for cash. Heck moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that prostitution between two consenting adults is not a crime when the statute defining prostitution and the statute that allows “consent” as a defense to a criminal offense are read together, and in this case there was no evidence of a lack of consent between Heck and “Destiny.”
The District Court agreed. It first noted that the prostitution statute explicitly provides that consent is not a defense to a prostitution charge when the person patronized is a child, but the statute does not otherwise bar consent as a defense to a prostitution charge. Applying principles of statutory construction, it reasoned that consent may be an available defense when the matter involves two consenting adults. In Heck’s case, the State did not allege that “Destiny” was a child or otherwise unable to consent to the conduct. The court thus dismissed the charge.
The State appeals the dismissal, arguing that the District Court erred in dismissing the case. The State argues that, to survive a motion to dismiss criminal charges, it only needs to present sufficient facts to support probable cause that the crime occurred, and it does not need to prove facts that would negate possible defenses. The State additionally argues that, under the language of the applicable statutes, consent is not a defense to a prostitution charge.