Montana
Perkins et al. v. State (HB 121)
A newly enacted Montana law, HB 121, bars transgender and intersex people from using restrooms and other sex-separated facilities that correspond to their gender identity in public spaces. In doing so, HB 121 seeks to undermine transgender and intersex people’s personhood and ability to participate in public life. Together with the ACLU of Montana and Legal Voice, the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative filed this lawsuit on behalf of a group of transgender and intersex Montanans challenging HB 121 as violating numerous provisions of the Montana Constitution.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Visit ACLU of Montana
All Cases
20 Montana Cases
Montana Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Free Speech
+2 Issues
City of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.
Explore case
Montana Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Free Speech
+2 Issues
City of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
Western Native Voice v. Jacobsen
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Montana, Native American Rights Fund (NARF), and the Harvard Election Law Clinic challenged two Montana laws that hinder Native American participation in the state’s electoral process — HB 530, which prohibited paid third-party ballot collection; and HB 176, which repealed Election Day voter registration (EDR) in Montana. Together, these laws violate a number of provisions in the Montana Constitution: the right to vote, equal protection, free speech, and due process.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Voting Rights
Western Native Voice v. Jacobsen
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Montana, Native American Rights Fund (NARF), and the Harvard Election Law Clinic challenged two Montana laws that hinder Native American participation in the state’s electoral process — HB 530, which prohibited paid third-party ballot collection; and HB 176, which repealed Election Day voter registration (EDR) in Montana. Together, these laws violate a number of provisions in the Montana Constitution: the right to vote, equal protection, free speech, and due process.
Montana
May 2024
National Security
Alario v. Knudsen (Amicus)
In April 2023, Montana’s state legislature passed SB 419, an Act Banning TikTok in Montana. This law imposes a sweeping ban on free expression—one that would prevent everyday Montanans from using TikTok to communicate with immense audiences, access information from around the world, and express themselves. This ban flouts the First Amendment and tramples Montanans’ constitutional right to freedom of speech—that’s why the ACLU, ACLU of Montana, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and a coalition of civil society organizations filed amicus briefs in the district court and the Ninth Circuit urging the courts to block the law from going into effect. Through these briefs, we continue to fight to ensure that no legislature can ban Americans from using an immensely popular platform for online speech based on vague invocations of “national security” or anti-China rhetoric.
Explore case
Montana
May 2024
National Security
Alario v. Knudsen (Amicus)
In April 2023, Montana’s state legislature passed SB 419, an Act Banning TikTok in Montana. This law imposes a sweeping ban on free expression—one that would prevent everyday Montanans from using TikTok to communicate with immense audiences, access information from around the world, and express themselves. This ban flouts the First Amendment and tramples Montanans’ constitutional right to freedom of speech—that’s why the ACLU, ACLU of Montana, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and a coalition of civil society organizations filed amicus briefs in the district court and the Ninth Circuit urging the courts to block the law from going into effect. Through these briefs, we continue to fight to ensure that no legislature can ban Americans from using an immensely popular platform for online speech based on vague invocations of “national security” or anti-China rhetoric.
Montana Supreme Court
May 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. Montana
In 2020, in Held v. Montana, sixteen youth plaintiffs challenged Montana’s energy policy as violating the Montana Constitution. After several years of litigation, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed that Montanans have a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.
In January 2026, Montana youth filed a second case, Held II, to enforce the Court’s decision after the Legislature enacted new laws that the plaintiffs contend undermine the constitutional protections recognized in the Court’s earlier decision and permit continued approval of fossil fuel projects that worsen climate harms.
The State moved to transfer Held II to a different district under SB 97, a law that gives the government a special right to forum shop in cases challenging new laws and makes it significantly harder for Montanans to pursue such challenges. SB 97 thus raises serious access-to-justice concerns in this case and any others in which people are seeking relief from allegedly unconstitutional laws.
Explore case
Montana Supreme Court
May 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. Montana
In 2020, in Held v. Montana, sixteen youth plaintiffs challenged Montana’s energy policy as violating the Montana Constitution. After several years of litigation, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed that Montanans have a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.
In January 2026, Montana youth filed a second case, Held II, to enforce the Court’s decision after the Legislature enacted new laws that the plaintiffs contend undermine the constitutional protections recognized in the Court’s earlier decision and permit continued approval of fossil fuel projects that worsen climate harms.
The State moved to transfer Held II to a different district under SB 97, a law that gives the government a special right to forum shop in cases challenging new laws and makes it significantly harder for Montanans to pursue such challenges. SB 97 thus raises serious access-to-justice concerns in this case and any others in which people are seeking relief from allegedly unconstitutional laws.