Author: William L. Saunders Jr.
State High Court | Judicial Selection Process | Legal Authority |
---|---|---|
General
Interim Vacancies
|
Latest News
- Advocates begin campaign to get Montana abortion amendment on November ballot - KTVH
- Republican legislators hold hearing on abortion ballot initiative; vote won't appear on petition • Daily Montanan - Daily Montanan
- Montana State Legislative Interim Committee votes against proposed abortion initiative - Montana Right Now
- State Supreme Court to hear case at Montana State on April 22 - Montana State University
- Group kicks off signature gathering efforts for Montana abortion access ballot petition • Daily Montanan - Daily Montanan
- Erin Farris-Olsen: Clerk of Supreme Court position too important for Ellsworth - Billings Gazette
- Montana's 2nd legislative branch - Independent Record
- Who's running for office in Montana's 2024 election - Montana Free Press
- The Montana Supreme Court Tries to Move the State Left - Independence Institute
- Montana Supreme Court overturns homicide conviction as new evidence comes to light • Daily Montanan - Daily Montanan
Scholarship & White Papers
-
Supreme Court Reaffirms Its Holding from Citizens United
In denying a recent petition for certiorari and summarily reversing a decision of the Montana Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court adhered to principles of stare decisis and reaffirmed its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (“Citizens United”), which held that corporations and labor unions’ independent spending for political campaigns enjoys First Amendment free-speech protection.1 The Montana Supreme Court had upheld a state law that prohibited corporate political expenditures, reasoning that Citizens United did not apply in Montana because of the state’s purportedly distinctive history of its “political system being corrupted by corporate interests.”2 The United States Supreme Court disagreed, summarily reversing without granting certiorari.3
-
Montana Takes on Citizens United
From the Montana Supreme Court comes a potential challenge to the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (“Citizens United”). The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision ruled, 5-4, that corporations’ and labor unions’ independent spending in elections is political speech and does not corrupt the political process; therefore, a ban on such spending included in section 203 of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”) could not survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
-
Montana Supreme Court: Physician-Assisted Suicide Is an End-of-Life Option
On the last day of 2009, Montana’s Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Baxter v. Montana,1 making it the first high court to permit physician-assisted suicide. “[W]e find nothing in Montana Supreme Court precedent or Montana statutes indicating that physician aid in dying is against public policy,”2 stated the court. “We also find nothing in the plain language of Montana statutes indicating that physician aid in dying is against public policy. In physician aid in dying, the patient—not the physician—commits the final death-causing act by self administering a lethal dose of medicine.”3 Therefore, under Montana’s consent statute4 “a terminally ill patient’s consent to physician aid in dying constitutes a statutory defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician when no other consent exceptions apply.”