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 215 N. Sanders, Helena, Montana. 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 


2024

MARCH

DA 23-0272

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MONTANA and SAMUEL DICKMAN, M.D., on behalf of themselves and their patients, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. STATE OF MONTANA and AUSTIN KNUDSEN, Attorney General of the State of Montana, in his official capacity, and his agents and successors, Defendants and Appellants.  Oral Argument is set for Wednesday, March 6, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in the courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana.

Live-streamed through the Court’s website at:   http://stream.vision.net/MT-JUD/

The 2013 Montana Legislature enacted the Parental Consent for Abortion Act, which bars a minor from obtaining an abortion in Montana without a parent’s or guardian’s consent.  Planned Parenthood challenged the Act’s constitutionality before its effective date.  The Montana Attorney General agreed to a preliminary injunction and the Act has never gone into effect.

In February 2023, the District Court ruled that the Act impermissibly infringes on the right to privacy under the Montana Constitution.  The court applied a strict-scrutiny standard in considering whether the Act is constitutional because the court concluded that the Act implicated a fundamental state constitutional right.

On appeal, the State of Montana argues that minors are not entitled to the same fundamental rights as adults and thus the court should not have applied the strict-scrutiny standard.  The State argues that the Act enhances the protection of minors who would seek abortions by requiring those minors to obtain parental consent.  Thus, instead of strictly scrutinizing the Act’s constitutionality, the court should have balanced the rights of minors against the State’s right to limit minors’ fundamental rights by statute.  The State argues that under this standard, the Act is constitutional.

DA 23-0268

MONTANA TROUT UNLIMITED, TROUT UNLIMITED, MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER, EARTHWORKS, and AMERICAN RIVERS, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION and TINTINA MONTANA INC., Respondents and Appellees. Oral Argument is set for Friday, March 29, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in the Montana School of Theatre and Dance on the campus of University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, with an introduction to the oral argument at 9:30 a.m.

Montana Trout Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Montana Environmental Information Center, Earthworks, and American Rivers challenged a determination by the Montana Department of Natural Resources that Tintina Montana Inc., which proposes to construct and operate the Black Butte Copper Mine, need not obtain a permit under the Montana Water Use Act for its mine dewatering.

The Conservation Groups alleged that DNRC violated the MWUA because Tintina must obtain a permit as mine dewatering constitutes a “beneficial use” under the MWUA.  The Meagher County District Court disagreed, agreeing with DNRC that Tintina’s proposal for mine dewatering is neither a “beneficial use” nor a “waste” and DNRC correctly exempted the additional groundwater from its permitting requirements.  The court was further unpersuaded by the Conservation Groups’ argument that the beneficial-use statutes within the MWUA are unconstitutional if they allow for mining companies to pump unlimited amounts of groundwater without a permit because this would violate parts of the Montana Constitution that provide for the protection of the environment and water rights.

On appeal, the Conservation Groups argue that the District Court erred because Tintina’s proposed mine dewatering is a “beneficial use” subject to permit requirements in the MWUA.  The Conservation Groups alternately argue that if mine dewatering is exempt from permitting via a “loophole” in the MWUA, then the MWUA violates the Montana Constitution. 

APRIL

DA 21-0260

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DANIELLE WOOD, Defendant and Appellant.  Oral Argument is set for Monday, April 22, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. in the Strand Union Building, Ballroom A, on the campus of Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, with an introduction to the oral argument beginning at 10:00 a.m.

In March 2019, Danielle Wood was charged with deliberate homicide and accountability for deliberate homicide for the death of Matthew LaFriniere, who was found dead from gunshot wounds near his home’s driveway in May 2018. 

LaFriniere had custody of his and Wood’s child, but he allowed Wood to spend time with the child.  On the evening of LaFriniere’s death, the child was at Wood’s home while Wood hosted a gathering.  Wood received a text from an unknown number that purported to be from LaFriniere and asked her to delay returning the child.  Wood then drove to LaFriniere’s home, returning to her home 30 to 40 minutes later and advising her guests that LaFriniere was not home.  Wood texted LaFriniere’s cellphone and the unknown number, stating that she would await LaFriniere’s call before returning the child.  The following morning, a coworker discovered LaFriniere’s body.

At trial, the State relied on expert testimony regarding the location of Wood’s cellphone and the “TracFone” associated with the unknown number to argue that Wood used the TracFone to provide herself with an alibi and to place a 911 call on the evening of LaFriniere’s death to divert law enforcement to a distant location.  The District Court admitted this evidence over Wood’s objection that the expert was unqualified and his opinions were based on unreliable evidence.

Wood also argued the State should not be allowed to argue accountability.  She alleged the State had presented insufficient evidence of this charge because it never named her alleged accomplice and only argued she had personally killed LaFriniere.  The District Court instructed the jury on the theory of accountability.  The jury convicted Wood of LaFriniere’s homicide.

On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court requested oral argument limited to the issues of whether the District Court properly instructed the jury on accountability and whether it properly admitted evidence of cell-site location information.

MAY

DA 23-0225

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER and SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiffs, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY and NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION, Defendants, Appellants, and Cross-Appellees, and STATE OF MONTANA, by and through the OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Intervenor/Defendant. Oral Argument is set for Wednesday, May 15, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana.

Live-streamed through the Court’s website at:   http://stream.vision.net/MT-JUD/

The Montana Environmental Information Center and Sierra Club (Environmental Groups) challenged a permit issued by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to allow Northwestern Corporation to construct a new power plant.  The Environmental Groups alleged that DEQ failed to evaluate the environmental consequences of the power plant as required by the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).

The District Court determined that DEQ had complied with MEPA on some issues, but had failed to take a “hard look” at lighting and greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in Montana.  The court did not reach the Environmental Groups’ argument that a provision of MEPA that prohibits state agencies from reviewing potential climate impacts beyond Montana is unconstitutional.  The court remanded the environmental assessment to DEQ for further analysis and vacated the air quality permit that DEQ had issued.

On appeal, Northwestern argues the court erred because DEQ was not required to analyze the effect of greenhouse gas emissions, and DEQ sufficiently analyzed the lighting issue.  Northwestern further maintains that recent amendments to MEPA has mooted the greenhouse gas issue.  Northwestern and DEQ both argue it was improper for the court to vacate the permit.

The Environmental Groups argue that the court should have concluded that DEQ also failed to adequately evaluate noise impacts and to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions in general.  They argue that if amendments to MEPA no longer allow evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions, then those amendments are unconstitutional.