Montana Supreme Court: When the public's right to know is vindicated, attorneys fees should follow
The entrance to the Montana Supreme Court (Photo by Eric Seidle/ For the Daily Montanan).
In a sprawling, 61-page decision that had about as many opinions attached to it as members of Montana's highest court, a majority of justices said that the State of Montana, specifically the governor's office, should pay attorneys fees in a public documents fight between the office and groups wanting more information about a mining executive.
However, the particular details before the court were not whether a former mining executive should be permitted to lead a mining company after his former company was found to be a 'bad actor' by state law. Instead, the Montana Supreme Court weighed in on when the government should pay attorneys fees in the public records dispute.
In a fractured mix of majority, concurring and dissenting opinions, at least four justices agreed that Lewis and Clark District Judge Christopher Abbott should have given attorneys fees to the Montana Environmental Information Center and Earthworks, which had sued Gov. Greg Gianforte for documents related to Phillips S. Baker, Jr., and permitting documents related to both Hecla Mining and the Montanore mine. The MEIC argued that the state had not enforced its 'bad actor' provision against Baker, the Hecla CEO, because of his leadership in a company that went went bankrupt, while leaving millions of dollars of mining mess to be taken care of in perpetuity by the state.
MEIC and Earthworks, which won the public documents fight against the governor, also asked for attorneys fees because they brought the lawsuit under the Montana Constitution's right-to-know provisions. In the state, judges have discretion to award attorneys fees when private groups or individuals are successful in vindicating constitutional rights, like obtaining public documents.
Previously, the Montana State Supreme Court had been reluctant to recommend a checklist of conditions that have to be met in order to award attorneys fees, instead relying on the judgment of district or trial court judges. However, a majority of the court decided to take up the issue, saying that more guidance was necessary for judges, something a minority, including Chief Justice Cory Swanson, balked at. The dissenting opinions centered on the idea that judges should still have latitude to decide on a case-by-case basis, and that if the Legislature wanted to mandate attorneys fees, it should be done in law.
Justice Laurie McKinnon wrote the majority opinion, with James Jeremiah Shea, Katherine Bidegaray and Ingrid Gustafson concurring. Justices Jim Rice and Beth Baker, along with Swanson were in the minority.
The majority pointed out in the case that the governor's office had employed a 'novel' legal theory that Abbott debunked, but even so, 'the court found the governor's office shirked its clear legal duty to MEIC's request.'
'When a party succeeds in litigation based on a right to know request, it has performed a public service in ensuring that Montana's government is appropriately transparent and accountable to the people,' the majority opinion said.
The justices reasoned that if constitutionally protected rights are meaningful, then litigation — or the ability to take the government to court — must be accessible.
'The result of the district court's order — that MEIC prevailed and undeniably performed a public service, yet it is denied attorney's fees — is dissonant with the foundational purposes of Article II, Section 9, and actively disincentivizes citizens from enforcing that right,' the majority opinion said. 'For citizens to be able to enforce the provision against the government, litigation must be accessible; for litigation to be accessible, there should be a basic presumption towards awarding attorney's fees when the party seeking to enforce the right to know has prevailed on its merits.'
The majority shifted the blame back to the Montana Supreme Court, saying the state's provisions for awarding attorneys fees had created a 'vacuum of necessary guidance,' and the majority wanted to more fully develop the advice.
Abbott had determined that because Gianforte had not acted in bad faith, and because attorneys fees would essentially be borne by Montana taxpayers, he decided not to award attorneys fees.
However, the court said the calculus Abbott used — whether there was evidence of bad faith — shouldn't be the deciding factor in the right-to-know cases.
'When a plaintiff prevails on the merits of a right to know dispute, it means that, whether in good faith or bad faith, the government pushed back against the constitutional presumption and, in doing so, violated a fundamental right,' the opinion said. 'But because we have previously neglected to suggest a presumption — or even a preference — for awarding fees in this context, even plaintiffs with an exceptionally strong case and an egregious violation must carefully consider whether it is worth the risk of winning the documents but losing fees.'
The court's opinion also said it was taking up the matter because it's essential for courts and citizens to understand fundamental or Constitutional rights.
'We seek to provide basic guidance that works to encourage and strengthen the people's exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. This presumption does not eliminate judicial discretion, but rather structures it to reflect the constitutional emphasis on transparency,' the ruling said. 'This presumption is not a novelty imagined at the whims of this court; it is part of the fabric of the right to know which has been errantly lost to an unboundedly deferential standard that allows for results fundamentally at odds with the Constitution.'
Leaders from both Earthworks and MEIC cheered the decision, saying the decision was a win for residents who want to keep tabs on government officials.
'Montana's Constitution guarantees the public the right to know what government is up to. Justice only works when every person has the ability to oversee their government,' said Anne Hedges, executive director with MEIC. 'This decision will ensure the public can continue to access government documents and will prevent abuse when the government officials refuse to comply with the constitution.'
MEIC Earthworks right to know decision
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
The Montana Supreme Court of discord
The Great Seal of the State of Montana in the Supreme Court (Photo by Eric Seidle/ For the Daily Montanan). The recent dust-up within the Montana Supreme Court has proven to be quite interesting – and somewhat disappointing. By a 4-3 majority, the court awarded attorney fees to the plaintiffs in Montana Environmental Information Center and Earthworks vs. Office of the Governor. This is certainly not an unheard-of occurrence; other cases have reached the same conclusion. In reaching this conclusion, the majority reversed the district court's denial of attorney fees. That's not unusual either. Here's what distinguishes this case in the eyes of the dissenting justices: The majority had the temerity to offer guidance in what has been a confusing and inconsistent area of the law. Here's the skinny: The plaintiffs asked the governor for copies of a wide range of documents. After about five months of dilly-dallying, the governor denied the request. The plaintiffs sued, relying on the right-to-know provision of the Montana constitution (Article II, Section 9). They won. When the plaintiffs filed to recover attorney fees for their litigation, district court denied the request. In the view of the district judge, the governor's Office 'did not act out of bad faith, indolence, or unreasonable delay.' This denial was at issue before the Supreme Court. In the 61 pages of ensuing verbiage, one nugget shines. It's a simple, single-sentence statute: 2-3-221. Costs to prevailing party in certain actions to enforce constitutional right to know. A person alleging a deprivation of rights who prevails in an action brought in district court to enforce the person's rights under Article II, section 9, of the Montana constitution may be awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees. In statutory interpretation, the word 'may' carries clear meaning: The district court has discretion to decide whether to award the costs and fees. In order to reverse that decision, the Supreme Court must determine that district court abused its discretion. At the onset of the majority opinion, Justice Laurie McKinnon wrote, 'When a party succeeds in litigation based on a right to know request, it has performed a public service in ensuring that Montana's government is appropriately transparent and accountable to the people.' This statement follows precedent in at least two other cases (Bozeman Daily Chronicle v. City of Bozeman Police Department (1993), Associated Press, et al. v. Montana Department of Revenue (2000)). So far, so good. On this basis, the majority took the next step: 'A presumption towards awarding fees when a plaintiff vindicates their constitutional right to know follows naturally in the context of the right.' This is what set the dissenters' teeth on edge. Justice Jim Rice's dissent said the majority 'abandons actual law and backfills the vacuum with its own creation made of whole cloth.' I don't see it. In fact, Justice James Jeremiah Shea pointed out that 'both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have long recognized, on a number of occasions, the necessity of creating frameworks to guide the discretion of lower courts in applying statutory awards of attorney fees.' Well, reasonable people can (and should) disagree. What puzzles me was Justice Rice's swerve into accusing the majority of bias against a Republican administration and partisan weaponizing of the law. Where did that come from? When Justice McKinnon took the unusual step of responding to Rice's 'highly inappropriate and unprofessional attack,' Chief Justice Cory Swanson weighed in. His self-proclaimed in-depth reading of Shea's dissent found 'nothing offensive or personal in his criticism.' I find that artificially ingenuous and doubly repugnant. McKinnon wrote a well reasoned majority opinion that furthers our understanding of the right to know. It deserves respect rather than ridicule. MEIC Earthworks right to know decision
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Yahoo
Montana Supreme Court: When the public's right to know is vindicated, attorneys fees should follow
The entrance to the Montana Supreme Court (Photo by Eric Seidle/ For the Daily Montanan). In a sprawling, 61-page decision that had about as many opinions attached to it as members of Montana's highest court, a majority of justices said that the State of Montana, specifically the governor's office, should pay attorneys fees in a public documents fight between the office and groups wanting more information about a mining executive. However, the particular details before the court were not whether a former mining executive should be permitted to lead a mining company after his former company was found to be a 'bad actor' by state law. Instead, the Montana Supreme Court weighed in on when the government should pay attorneys fees in the public records dispute. In a fractured mix of majority, concurring and dissenting opinions, at least four justices agreed that Lewis and Clark District Judge Christopher Abbott should have given attorneys fees to the Montana Environmental Information Center and Earthworks, which had sued Gov. Greg Gianforte for documents related to Phillips S. Baker, Jr., and permitting documents related to both Hecla Mining and the Montanore mine. The MEIC argued that the state had not enforced its 'bad actor' provision against Baker, the Hecla CEO, because of his leadership in a company that went went bankrupt, while leaving millions of dollars of mining mess to be taken care of in perpetuity by the state. MEIC and Earthworks, which won the public documents fight against the governor, also asked for attorneys fees because they brought the lawsuit under the Montana Constitution's right-to-know provisions. In the state, judges have discretion to award attorneys fees when private groups or individuals are successful in vindicating constitutional rights, like obtaining public documents. Previously, the Montana State Supreme Court had been reluctant to recommend a checklist of conditions that have to be met in order to award attorneys fees, instead relying on the judgment of district or trial court judges. However, a majority of the court decided to take up the issue, saying that more guidance was necessary for judges, something a minority, including Chief Justice Cory Swanson, balked at. The dissenting opinions centered on the idea that judges should still have latitude to decide on a case-by-case basis, and that if the Legislature wanted to mandate attorneys fees, it should be done in law. Justice Laurie McKinnon wrote the majority opinion, with James Jeremiah Shea, Katherine Bidegaray and Ingrid Gustafson concurring. Justices Jim Rice and Beth Baker, along with Swanson were in the minority. The majority pointed out in the case that the governor's office had employed a 'novel' legal theory that Abbott debunked, but even so, 'the court found the governor's office shirked its clear legal duty to MEIC's request.' 'When a party succeeds in litigation based on a right to know request, it has performed a public service in ensuring that Montana's government is appropriately transparent and accountable to the people,' the majority opinion said. The justices reasoned that if constitutionally protected rights are meaningful, then litigation — or the ability to take the government to court — must be accessible. 'The result of the district court's order — that MEIC prevailed and undeniably performed a public service, yet it is denied attorney's fees — is dissonant with the foundational purposes of Article II, Section 9, and actively disincentivizes citizens from enforcing that right,' the majority opinion said. 'For citizens to be able to enforce the provision against the government, litigation must be accessible; for litigation to be accessible, there should be a basic presumption towards awarding attorney's fees when the party seeking to enforce the right to know has prevailed on its merits.' The majority shifted the blame back to the Montana Supreme Court, saying the state's provisions for awarding attorneys fees had created a 'vacuum of necessary guidance,' and the majority wanted to more fully develop the advice. Abbott had determined that because Gianforte had not acted in bad faith, and because attorneys fees would essentially be borne by Montana taxpayers, he decided not to award attorneys fees. However, the court said the calculus Abbott used — whether there was evidence of bad faith — shouldn't be the deciding factor in the right-to-know cases. 'When a plaintiff prevails on the merits of a right to know dispute, it means that, whether in good faith or bad faith, the government pushed back against the constitutional presumption and, in doing so, violated a fundamental right,' the opinion said. 'But because we have previously neglected to suggest a presumption — or even a preference — for awarding fees in this context, even plaintiffs with an exceptionally strong case and an egregious violation must carefully consider whether it is worth the risk of winning the documents but losing fees.' The court's opinion also said it was taking up the matter because it's essential for courts and citizens to understand fundamental or Constitutional rights. 'We seek to provide basic guidance that works to encourage and strengthen the people's exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. This presumption does not eliminate judicial discretion, but rather structures it to reflect the constitutional emphasis on transparency,' the ruling said. 'This presumption is not a novelty imagined at the whims of this court; it is part of the fabric of the right to know which has been errantly lost to an unboundedly deferential standard that allows for results fundamentally at odds with the Constitution.' Leaders from both Earthworks and MEIC cheered the decision, saying the decision was a win for residents who want to keep tabs on government officials. 'Montana's Constitution guarantees the public the right to know what government is up to. Justice only works when every person has the ability to oversee their government,' said Anne Hedges, executive director with MEIC. 'This decision will ensure the public can continue to access government documents and will prevent abuse when the government officials refuse to comply with the constitution.' MEIC Earthworks right to know decision
E&E News
28-05-2025
- E&E News
Montana lawmakers blunt group's historic court win on climate
Climate activists scored a pair of landmark legal victories in Montana over the past two years, giving momentum to similar youth-led efforts across the globe. Now state lawmakers have responded by targeting the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which helped propel the young activists to a courtroom win after they argued the law violated their constitutional right to a healthy environment. Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, a Republican, signed a package of bills into law this month that rewrite sections of the 1971 law. Flanked by Republican lawmakers and the state's top environmental appointee, Gianforte said the legislation 'reduces red tape and provides certainty to small and large businesses across our state.' Advertisement The measures that were added to the law restrict the scope of environmental reviews related to greenhouse gases and declare that the analyses are for informational purposes only and can't be used to deny permits. 'No more fantasyland ideas from climate crusaders who think Montana can run on solar panels and wishful thinking,' state Sen. Wylie Galt said at a Republican leadership press conference as the bills advanced. Environmentalists, however, said the changes put the state increasingly at odds with the courts. 'They are attempting to unwind what is constitutionally guaranteed,' said Derf Johnson, deputy director of the Montana Environmental Information Center. 'Once again, we're passing laws that are clearly problematic in terms of what our constitution requires.' Republicans in the state House and Senate acknowledged that the legislation was a response to the state's loss in Held v. Montana, which Galt called a 'present to radical environmental activists.' In the case brought by 16 young people, a state court declared in August 2023 that lawmakers had violated the Montana Constitution by barring state agencies from considering the climate effects of fossil fuel projects. At issue was the Legislature's decision in 2011 to revise MEPA to exclude consideration of out-of-state climate emissions when weighing whether to approve projects such as power plants. In-state climate emissions were excluded by the Legislature in 2023, before the case went to trial. Later that year, Judge Kathy Seeley of the 1st Judicial District Court in Montana struck down the two emissions-related measures that were added to the environmental policy act, finding that youth in the state have a 'fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.' The 2023 ruling was a major victory for the young people, who made history by securing a win in the nation's first climate trial brought by young plaintiffs. It also boosted other climate litigation, including a similar lawsuit in Hawaii that was settled last June when state officials reached an agreement with the youth. And it was upheld in December by the Montana Supreme Court, which found that the delegates who wrote the 1972 Montana Constitution intended to provide 'the strongest environmental protection provision found in any state constitution.' Neither ruling sat well with Republican lawmakers — who had filed their own friend of the court brief urging the high court to reject the case. 'In that Held decision, it was kind of like we had — and I'm going to say something a little spicy — a bunch of little Greta Thunbergs, it seemed like,' state Rep. Randyn Gregg, a Republican, said on a podcast in January as the legislative session opened. Held v. Montana 'didn't just make headlines, it sent shock waves through Montana's economy,' said state Rep. Greg Oblander, a Republican, calling it an 'open invitation for activists to weaponize our environmental laws against the very industries that keep Montana running.' 'Weaponizing and litigation' Republicans proposed a package of bills to counter the court rulings, arguing that MEPA was intended to provide guidance to government officials — not serve as a means to deter coal, oil and gas projects. 'In the Held v. Montana court case, they tried to twist MEPA into something it was never meant to be — a tool to deny permits and block development,' state House Speaker Brandon Ler (R) said as Gianforte signed the package into law earlier this month. Ler, who sponsored one of the bills, said his legislation underscores the idea that environmental reviews are only procedural: 'It's a way to gather facts, weigh impacts and make informed decisions — not dictate them,' he said. 'We're making it clear that Montana's environmental policy is about informed decision-making, and not weaponizing and litigation.' Most Montana environmental laws begin with a reference to the state constitution, but Ler's bill strikes that language from MEPA. Another bill sets guidelines for MEPA assessments, narrowing the scope so that it does not not include greenhouse gas emissions beyond the boundaries of a proposed plant. That would mean a coal mine's exports wouldn't be a factor, for example. A third bill does not revise MEPA, but prevents the state from adopting any clean air standards that are more stringent than federal ones. A parade of fossil fuel interests, business groups and unions supported the measure. Federal standards 'are more than adequate,' Dan Brooks of the Billings Chamber of Commerce told lawmakers. Eva Lighthiser, one of the 16 young challengers who testified at the Held trial, told lawmakers that it was wrong to prevent the state from regulating harmful greenhouse gases. 'This bill goes against our constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment,' she said. 'This bill evades the state's responsibility to uphold our constitutional rights.' Other legislative efforts aimed at blunting Held were not as successful. Less than a month after the Montana Supreme Court upheld the Held decision, the court cited the decision in a ruling that determined state officials had not conducted an adequate review of a controversial gas-fired power plant. That ruling, along with the court's decision to uphold Held, prompted lawmakers to call for partisan judicial elections, as well as a new court that would focus on business interests. Neither of the measures passed the Legislature. Our Children's Trust, the public interest law firm that represented the young people in Montana, said it plans to stay active in the state. 'The disdain lawmakers showed for the decision really affirms it's a momentous decision and will have significant effects in Montana,' said Nate Bellinger, supervising senior staff attorney at the Oregon-based firm. He noted that lawmakers did not alter the constitution, which says public officials have a constitutional duty to protect people's right to a clean and healthful environment. 'We will continue to be there, to help represent youth and enforce and uphold the right to a clean environment,' Bellinger said. 'If that means follow-up litigation, that's what it means.'
