From vigilantes to judges: What Montana's past teaches us about justice today
A sign on a livery and stable in Virginia City noting where the vigilantes met to discuss how to apprehend road agents (Photo by Darrell Ehrlick of the Daily Montanan).
Montana has always been a place that values freedom and self-reliance. But our early history shows what happens when justice is left to those acting outside the law.
In the 1860s, before Montana was even a territory, rough mining camps like Bannack and Virginia City were plagued by theft and violence. With no real courts or law enforcement, desperate citizens turned to vigilante justice—self-appointed committees who held mock trials and issued swift punishments, often by hanging.
These Montana Vigilantes formed to bring order to chaos. Between 1863 and 1865, they hanged dozens of alleged criminals, including Bannack's elected sheriff, Henry Plummer, who was suspected of leading a ruthless gang of road agents. While some say the vigilantes brought safety to the camps, they operated far beyond the boundaries of due process or constitutional rights.
That dramatic history serves as a cautionary tale. True justice requires more than good intentions—it requires a fair, impartial, and functioning judiciary whose orders are respected not only by the citizens but also by the other branches of government. That is what separates a just society from mob rule.
Today, Montana's legal system looks nothing like it did in the vigilante era. Judges are trained professionals, bound by the rule of law and guided by legal precedent. And while high-profile Supreme Court cases get the headlines, most justice in Montana happens quietly in small-town courthouses.
Last year nearly 57,000 new cases were filed in Montana's district courts alone. Roughly 700 cases ever make it to the Montana Supreme Court. The rest are resolved by district and local judges—judges who help regular Montanans through real-life problems.
They preside over divorces and custody disputes, ensuring parenting plans are fair and that children are protected. They help sort out estates, wills, and inheritances after the death of a loved one. They settle property line disagreements and water rights claims that affect livelihoods. They resolve disputes between business partners and interpret contracts that went sideways. They even protect intellectual property like trademarks and patents that power small businesses and entrepreneurs.
In short, our judges aren't just legal experts—they're guides who help us resolve our most complicated and emotionally charged conflicts. Their work is the backbone of an orderly society.
But access to justice doesn't just depend on laws—it depends on people. We need enough judges to handle the growing caseloads across the state. Unfortunately, some parts of Montana are struggling to keep up. Yellowstone County, in particular, has seen case numbers climb steadily, leading to delays that hurt families, businesses, and communities.
That's why we supported Gov. Greg Gianforte's budget proposal to add three new district court judges in Yellowstone County.
This isn't about helping lawyers—it's about helping people. It's about ensuring that regular Montanans can get their day in court without waiting months or years for resolution.
Because justice delayed is justice denied.
We've seen what happens when people feel like they can't rely on the courts. As U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his 2024 year-end report on the federal judiciary, threats against federal judges have tripled in the last decade. And just last month in Helena, a woman was shot and killed after threatening courthouse staff and a judge.
If we want to keep our state safe, fair, and free, we must protect our legal system. That means defending judicial independence. It means being informed about judicial elections. And it means recognizing that the law isn't an abstract concept—it's a promise. A promise that no matter who you are, where you live, or what you're going through, you can resolve your dispute in a courtroom—not in the street.
We've come a long way from the vigilante days. Let's make sure we never go back.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

2 hours ago
A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments in Trump's bid to erase his hush money conviction
NEW YORK -- President Donald Trump's quest to erase his criminal conviction heads to a federal appeals court Wednesday. It's one way he's trying to get last year's hush money verdict overturned. A three-judge panel is set to hear arguments in Trump's long-running fight to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court, where he could then try to have the verdict thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. The Republican is asking the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the federal appeals court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. The 2nd Circuit should 'determine once and for all that this unprecedented criminal prosecution of a former and current President of the United States belongs in federal court," Trump's lawyers wrote in a court filing. The Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted Trump's case, wants it to stay in state court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If Trump loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, arguing that Trump's historic prosecution violated his constitutional rights and ran afoul of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, which was decided about a month after the hush money trial ended. The ruling reins in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. In a four-page ruling, Hellerstein wrote that nothing about the high court's ruling affected his prior conclusion that hush money payments at issue in Trump's case 'were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.' Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that prosecutors erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. Trump's former criminal defense lawyer Todd Blanche is now the deputy U.S. attorney general, the Justice Department's second-in-command. Another of his lawyers, Emil Bove, has a high-ranking Justice Department position. The trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, rejected Trump's requests to throw out the conviction on presidential immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Appearing by video at his sentencing, Trump called the case a 'political witch hunt,' 'a weaponization of government' and 'an embarrassment to New York.'


Bloomberg
3 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Argentina's Top Court Bans Kirchner From Office for Life
By Updated on Save Takeaways NEW Leer en español Argentina's Supreme Court upheld former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's fraud conviction, ratifying her sentence to six years in prison as well as a lifelong ban on holding public office, according to the court ruling reviewed by Bloomberg.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
What to know about Bolsonaro's trial now that he has testified over an alleged coup plot
SAO PAULO (AP) — Brazil's former president Jair Bolsonaro has finally testified before the country's Supreme Court over an alleged plot to remain in power and overturn the 2022 election result. After Bolsonaro and 33 allies were charged in February with five counts related to a plan to remain in power, a five-Justice panel of Brazil's top court opened a first trial for eight of them, including the former leader. Judges will hear from 26 other defendants in coming months. The former president has repeatedly denied the allegations and said he is the target of political persecution, but kept a soft tone in his testimony on Tuesday. The case stems from a Jan. 8, 2023 riot, when the Supreme Court, Congress and the Presidential Palace in Brasilia, the capital, were stormed by thousands of Bolsonaro supporters. Police say the uprising — which came after current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was sworn in — was an attempt to force military intervention and oust the new president. If convicted for the alleged coup, Bolsonaro could be sentenced to up to 12 years. When combined with the other charges, the accused might face decades behind bars. The case might not be over even after a conviction by the panel, which Bolsonaro can appeal before Brazil's Supreme Court full panel. Here's what is next in the trial: Testimonies The testimonies of the eight defendants is the final stage of the evidence collection phase, but their attorneys are allowed to request additional searches to help their case. Legal experts have said it is unlikely that Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the presiding judge and a member of the panel, will allow it. The evidence phase will be deemed complete once de Moraes decides on all requests. Final allegations Fifteen days after the collection phase is finished, Brazil's attorney-general will be allowed to present his final allegations. The attorneys of the defendants will get the same chance. Each of those allegations are expected to take several hours or even days. This needs to be completed before July, when Brazil's Supreme Court enters its recess until August. As soon as the final allegations stage is completed, the sentencing phase starts. Sentencing A Supreme Court panel of five judges will decide whether Bolsonaro and his allies are guilty or not. The judges who will decide the future of Brazil's former president are de Moraes, Cármen Lúcia, Cristiano Zanin, Flávio Dino and Luiz Fux. All of them had public battles with Bolsonaro. De Moraes was the primary judge in several cases against the far-right leader, while Zanin and Dino joined the court as Lula's appointees. Lúcia and Fux were also targets of Bolsonaro during their respective tenures chairing the electoral court and the Supreme Court. Should Bolsonaro be convicted, these judges will also decide his penalty. What if he's found guilty Bolsonaro would still be able to appeal to Brazil's Supreme Court full panel. Brazil's top prosecutor could do the same if the former president is not convicted on all counts. Before any potential jail time, Bolsonaro's lawyers could further delay the conclusion of the trial by asking for clarifications on the decisions of each judge. Legal experts have said all these steps are likely to be concluded by the end of the year. ___ Follow AP's coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at Mauricio Savarese, The Associated Press