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
USA Today
18 hours ago
- USA Today
Donald Trump says return of wrongfully deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia 'wasn't my decision'
Donald Trump says return of wrongfully deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia 'wasn't my decision' Show Caption Hide Caption Trump on the return of deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia President Trump spoke with reporters on Air Force One on the return of deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia. WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said in a new interview that he didn't speak with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele about Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return to the United States to face human trafficking charges, saying the move wasn't his choice. Trump told NBC News on June 7 it "wasn't my decision" to bring Abrego Garcia back to the country. Instead, he told the outlet the U.S. Justice Department 'decided to do it that way, and that's fine.' Abrego Garcia, a sheet metal worker and father of three from Maryland, was wrongly deported to El Salvador in March despite a 2019 court order barring his removal. His case drew national attention, after a standoff among the Trump administration, the courts and some congressional Democrats over his release. In April, a unanimous Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return to the United States. Officials claimed they couldn't force a sovereign nation − El Salvador − to relinquish a prisoner. The Trump administration insists that Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, but a federal judge had previously questioned the strength of the government's evidence. Abrego Garcia denies being a gang member. Now, the Maryland man faces new charges on American soil. At a June 6 press conference, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi accused Abrego Garcia of making over 100 trips to smuggle undocumented immigrants across the nation. The indictment against Abrego Garcia alleges that he and co-conspirators worked with people in other countries to transport immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, and Mexico, and then took the people from Houston to Maryland, often varying their routes, and coming up with cover stories about construction if they were pulled over. Trump told NBC News he believes "it should be a very easy case' for federal prosecutors. But Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, a lawyer for Abrego Garcia, criticized the Justice Department for bringing these charges at all: "Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after. This is an abuse of power, not justice." Contributing: USA TODAY Staff
Los Angeles Times
21 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns
MEXICO CITY — More than a decade ago, Mexican authorities erected a billboard along the border in Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso. 'No More Weapons,' was the stark message, written in English and crafted from 3 tons of firearms that had been seized and crushed. It was a desperate entreaty to U.S. officials to stanch the so-called Iron River, the southbound flow of arms that was fueling record levels of carnage in Mexico. But the guns kept coming — and the bloodletting and mayhem grew. Finally, with homicides soaring to record levels, exasperated authorities pivoted to a novel strategy: Mexico filed a $10-billion suit in U.S. federal court seeking to have Smith & Wesson and other signature manufacturers held accountable for the country's epidemic of shooting deaths. The uphill battle against the powerful gun lobby survived an appeals court challenge, but last week the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Mexico's lawsuit, ruling unanimously that federal law shields gunmakers from nearly all liability. Although the litigation stalled, advocates say the high-profile gambit did notch a significant achievement: Dramatizing the role of Made-in-U.S.A. arms in Mexico's daily drumbeat of assassinations, massacres and disappearances. 'Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, Mexico's lawsuit has accomplished a great deal,' said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. 'It has put the issue of gun trafficking — and the industry's role in facilitating the gun pipeline — on the bilateral and international agenda,' said Lowy, who was co-counsel in Mexico's lawsuit. A few hours after the high court decision, Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, wrote on X that the White House was intent on working with Mexico 'to stop southbound arms trafficking and dismantle networks fueling cartel violence.' The comments mark the first time that Washington — which has strong-armed Mexico to cut down on the northbound traffic of fentanyl and other illicit drugs — has acknowledged a reciprocal responsibility to clamp down on southbound guns, said President Claudia Sheinbaum. She hailed it as a breakthrough, years in the making. 'This is not just about the passage of narcotics from Mexico to the United States,' Sheinbaum said Friday. 'But that there [must] also be no passage of arms from the United States to Mexico.' Mexico is mulling options after the Supreme Court rebuff, Sheinbaum said. Still pending is a separate lawsuit by Mexico in U.S. federal court accusing five gun dealers in Arizona of trafficking weapons and ammunition to the cartels. Meanwhile, U.S. officials say that the Trump administration's recent designation of six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations means that weapons traffickers may face terrorism-related charges. 'In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there,' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a congressional panel last month. 'We want to help stop that flow.' On Monday, federal agents gathered at an international bridge in Laredo, Texas, before an array of seized arms — from snub-nosed revolvers to mounted machine guns — to demonstrate what they insist is a newfound resolve to stop the illicit gun commerce. 'This isn't a weapon just going to Mexico,' Craig Larrabee, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, told reporters. 'It's going to arm the cartels. It's going to fight police officers and create terror throughout Mexico.' In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Mexican authorities charged that it defied credibility that U.S. gunmakers were unaware that their products were destined for Mexican cartels — a charge denied by manufacturers. The gun industry also disputed Mexico's argument that manufacturers deliberately produce military-style assault rifles and other weapons that, for both practical and aesthetic reasons, appeal to mobsters. Mexico cited several .38-caliber Colt offerings, including a gold-plated, Jefe de Jefes ('Boss of Bosses') pistol; and a handgun dubbed the 'Emiliano Zapata,' emblazoned with an image of the revered Mexican revolutionary hero and his celebrated motto: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' Compared with the United States, Mexico has a much more stringent approach to firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment, Mexico's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it also stipulates that federal law 'will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places' of gun ownership. There are just two stores nationwide, both run by the military, where people can legally purchase guns. At the bigger store, in Mexico City, fewer than 50 guns are sold on average each day. Buyers are required to provide names, addresses and fingerprints in a process that can drag on for months. And unlike the United States, Mexico maintains a national registry. But the vast availability of U.S.-origin, black-market weapons undermines Mexico's strict guidelines. According to Mexican officials, an estimated 200,000 to half a million guns are smuggled annually into Mexico. Data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives illustrate where criminals in Mexico are obtaining their firepower. Of the 132,823 guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2018, fully 70% were found to have originated in the U.S. — mostly in Texas and other Southwest border states. In their lawsuit, Mexican authorities cited even higher numbers: Almost 90% of guns seized at crime scenes came from north of the border. Experts say most firearms in Mexico are bought legally at U.S. gun shows or retail outlets by so-called straw purchasers,who smuggle the weapons across the border. It's a surprisingly easy task: More than a million people and about $1.8 billion in goods cross the border legally each day, and Mexico rarely inspects vehicles heading south. In recent years, the flood of weapons from the United States has accelerated, fueling record levels of violence. Mexican organized crime groups have expanded their turf and moved into rackets beyond drug trafficking, including extortion, fuel-smuggling and the exploitation of timber, minerals and other natural resources. In 2004, guns accounted for one-quarter of Mexico's homicides. Today, guns are used in roughly three-quarters of killings. Mexican leaders have long been sounding alarms. Former President Felipe Calderón, who, with U.S. backing, launched what is now widely viewed as a catastrophic 'war' on Mexican drug traffickers in late 2006, personally pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to reinstate a congressional prohibition on purchases of high-powered assault rifles. The expiration of the ban in 2004 meant that any adult with a clean record could enter a store in most states and walk out with weapons that, in much of the world, are legally reserved for military use. 'Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands,' Calderon said in a 2010 address to the U.S. Congress. 'Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.' It was Calderón who, near the end of his term, ventured to the northern border to unveil the massive billboard urging U.S. authorities to stop the weapons flow. His appeals, and those of subsequent Mexican leaders, went largely unheeded. The verdict is still out on whether Washington will follow up on its latest vows to throttle the gun traffic. 'The Trump administration has said very clearly that it wants to go after Mexican organized crime groups,' said David Shirk, a political scientist at San Diego University who studies violence in Mexico. 'And, if you're going to get serious about Mexican cartels, you have to take away their guns.' Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.
Washington Post
a day ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court to hear case on IQ tests and death penalty next term
The Supreme Court will hear a case next term centered on the role of multiple IQ scores in determining an Alabama murderer's eligibility for the death penalty, according to a list issued by the court late Friday. In Hamm v. Smith, the state of Alabama is arguing that Joseph Smith — who was sentenced to death for a murder in 1997 — should be executed because he has not proved that his IQ is 70 or below, as required by state law. However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith's death sentence after ruling he is intellectually disabled because the score on one of his IQ tests could fall below 70 when accounting for margin of error. Smith had obtained five IQ scores that ranged from 72 to 78. The Supreme Court justices agreed to hear Hamm v. Smith to determine a limited question: 'Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim,' referring to the 2002 landmark decision Atkins v. Virginia, which ruled that executing those with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In November, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision to remand the case for further consideration. In it, the justices said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — which had affirmed the lower court's decision to vacate Smith's death sentence — had been unclear in why it had issued that decision. In February, the state of Alabama again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying the Eleventh Circuit 'watered down the most objective prong of the test, overrode Alabama's definition of intellectual disability, and shattered Atkins's promise to leave meaningful discretion to the States.' 'This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests. There is no way to conclude from these five numbers that Smith's true IQ is likely to be 70 or below,' the state of Alabama argued, also adding that evaluating multiple IQ scores is 'complicated' and that the Supreme Court has not specified how to do it. 'Smith could take hundreds of IQ tests, score 75 on all of them, yet his IQ still 'could be' 70, according to the panel [the Eleventh Circuit], because every test could have erred by 5 points. The panel failed to appreciate that multiple tests together can provide a more accurate estimate than each test alone,' the state argued. The Supreme Court's next term is scheduled to begin in October. The list of new cases was not expected until Monday morning, but email notifications about the list were inadvertently sent Friday evening because of a technical glitch, so the court chose to release the list of cases earlier than scheduled. In a statement that accompanied the early release, court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said the notifications were sent prematurely because of an 'apparent software malfunction.' Justin Jouvenal contributed to this report.
