Missoula judge finds DMV discriminated by not issuing driver's license
(Photo illustration by Getty Images.)
A Missoula judge has found that the Montana Department of Justice and the Motor Vehicle Division has violated the state Constitution and discriminated against a minor who was refused a driver's license because they were nonbinary.
Missoula County District Court Judge Shane Vannatta said the state had broken the law by not allowing an 'NB' listing on the license, which stands for nonbinary, and had refused to issue the license because the minor would not choose between 'male' and 'female' on the driver's license application.
The decision also amends a finding by the Montana Human Rights Commission examiner who had originally found that discrimination likely occurred when it treated the youth, listed in court documents as 'M.B.,' differently than others. The individual hearing officer who originally found evidence of discrimination was later overruled by the Human Rights Commission because state law only allows for a binary option of 'male' and 'female,' it said. Furthermore, the HRC's final ruling said that while discrimination based on sex is protected, gender is not a protected class.
Vannatta's decision upheld the original examiner's work.
The parents of M.B. had also changed their child's birth certificate so that it also declared 'nonbinary,' part of the evidence presented to the court.
Court documents reveal that the Motor Vehicle Division, Driver Services Bureau, does have the option of nonbinary and can issue licenses as such, but 'no action to effect such change was taken.'
Instead, the Montana Department of Justice argued that 'the law is settled in Montana — sex is male or female.'
'The (plaintiffs) can only establish that M.B. has a subjective gender identity that is not a part of any protected class, and as such their claims fail under any set of facts,' according to the court documents.
However, Vannatta said that the Montana Constitution Article II, Section 4 means that the 'equal protection clause requires that 'all persons be treated alike under like circumstances.''
'M.B.'s accurately completed MVD application (based on M.B.'s Montana birth certificate) was not accepted and entered into the computer system by the MVD, and as a result they were denied a driver's license when the MVD otherwise affords services to cisgender individuals whose birth certificates reflect the same,' Vannatta said.
The judge said that M.B.'s rights have been prejudiced because the MVD's conclusions were 'characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
![It's About Time We Give Jasmine Crockett Her Flowers [Op-Ed]](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnewsone.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F22%2F2025%2F06%2F17492285884438.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26strip%3Dall&w=3840&q=100)
![It's About Time We Give Jasmine Crockett Her Flowers [Op-Ed]](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fblackamericaweb.com.png&w=48&q=75)
Black America Web
41 minutes ago
- Black America Web
It's About Time We Give Jasmine Crockett Her Flowers [Op-Ed]
Source: Christopher Polk / Getty It's time to give Jasmine Crockett her flowers. Fearless and unapologetically outspoken Crockett—who currently serves on both the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees—is gearing up to make waves in Washington. On Tuesday, the Texas Democrat announced her campaign for the position of Ranking Member of the powerful House Oversight Committee, which plays a critical role in holding the federal government accountable by investigating waste, fraud, and abuse. Known for her sharp voice and no-nonsense approach, Crockett is ready to leave behind the Democratic Party's traditionally measured tone in favor of a more aggressive stance, vowing to confront President Donald Trump and his allies head-on. With her record of loud advocacy and relentless pursuit of justice, she's making it clear: she's not here to play—it's time to fight fire with fire. 'I believe I am the best candidate for this moment, for this particular position,' the 44-year-old politician told CBS Texas' Jack Fink on Wednesday. 'When we think about where we are in this country when we think about the level of lawlessness, corruption, unethical behavior that is taking place, I don't know that I can say that I believe that we would ever get to the point that we could actually impeach and convict him [Trump] so that he's out of office, because clearly, he's been through two impeachments, and he should have been convicted and he didn't, and in fact, he ended up being reelected. I don't know that that's necessarily the way that we need to go,' Crockett continued. 'But I do believe that we should educate the American people about the violations that are taking place as it relates to the emoluments clause as part of the Constitution and the other constitutional violations that he's engaging in.' If elected, Crockett vowed to get to the bottom of the Trump administration's negligence, citing the president's recent crypto dinner held in late May. According to NBC News , more than 200 wealthy—and mostly anonymous—crypto investors secured invitations to a private dinner with Trump in Washington, D.C. The cost of entry ranged from $55,000 to a staggering $37.7 million. Trump claimed that he did not make money from the event, but Democrats have called the mysterious gathering into question. The 220 attendees were selected based on their holdings of Trump's volatile cryptocurrency token, $TRUMP. The top token holders at a designated snapshot moment, chosen by the event's organizers, earned their seats at the table. 'What's going on with the fact that, I think they said 40% of his wealth right now has actually accumulated since he's been in office? I mean, I'm not allowed to make any money at all,' Crockett told Fink during their interview. 'I mean, a book deal is quite complicated for me as a low member … yet he is accumulating wealth and his family members.' Source: Anna Moneymaker / Getty Crockett has built her career around a singular mission: protecting civil liberties and fighting for justice in underserved communities. From public defender to civil rights attorney, State Representative, and now U.S. congresswoman, she has dedicated her life to public service. According to her website, amid political unrest and growing inequality, Crockett stepped up to lead—becoming the only Black freshman and the youngest Black lawmaker in Texas during the 87th Legislative Session. Despite serving during one of the state's most conservative sessions, she introduced more bills than any other freshman, championed criminal justice reform, and brought transparency and accessibility to her office. She also co-founded the Texas Progressive Caucus and the Texas Caucus on Climate, Energy, and the Environment. As a public defender in Bowie County, Crockett fought to protect the most vulnerable—especially children—highlighting how deeply intertwined justice is with issues of equity and opportunity. Her legal and legislative work culminated in a bold stand during the 2021 Texas House Quorum Break, drawing national attention to efforts to restrict voting rights. Since 2023, she has represented Texas' 30th Congressional District in the U.S. House, succeeding the late Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson. In Congress, she has quickly become a rising leader—serving as Vice Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, and Co-Chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus Communications Task Force. Through it all, Crockett has been a powerful advocate for justice, equity, and opportunity. Fans love the congresswoman's authenticity, a quality that just might be the ingredient to improving trust between the American people and Democrats. According to an NBC News poll released in March, only 27% of registered American voters hold a positive view of the Democratic Party—the lowest rating since NBC began tracking in 1990. Despite this challenging climate, Crockett has repeatedly proven she's unafraid to challenge both business interests and powerful figures in the White House. On her X account, Crockett hasn't shied away from calling out President Trump, labeling him a 'buffoon' and a 'mofo' — a shorthand for a harsher insult. In response, Trump has mocked Crockett, who many have called the 'future of the Democratic Party,' dismissing her as 'low IQ.' At the National Republican Congressional Committee Dinner in April, Trump took another jab, warning that the Democratic Party was in 'serious trouble' if it counted on Crockett to lead its comeback. Crockett fired back during her Thursday interview with Fink, bluntly calling the Republican a 'loser.' 'He's such a loser and I say that and I'm laughing, but I really do believe he's a loser,' she chuckled. 'Whenever people start to attack you based on things that are not of substance, that's when you know that you're really getting under their skin and that there is nothing to attack.' Trump and his administration aren't ready for a congresswoman like Crockett, who is willing to dish right back what they serve. She deserves the House Oversight Committee seat because she pairs bold, unapologetic leadership with a sharp focus on transparency and justice. In a political era that demands courage, accountability, and raw honesty, she's the fierce, principled voice the committee needs. SEE MORE: MAGAts Big Mad Over Jasmine Crockett's Byron Donalds Remarks Rep. Jasmine Crockett Is Gathering The Government SEE ALSO It's About Time We Give Jasmine Crockett Her Flowers [Op-Ed] was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Newsom: Trump wants LA unrest to divide us, using anti-ICE protest fallout for political gain
The Brief California Governor Gavin Newsom criticized President Trump for sending the National Guard to Los Angeles County, calling it illegal and unconstitutional. Newsom accused Trump of using the unrest for political gain and creating a constitutional crisis. Trump responded by blaming Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass for failing to manage the protests effectively. LOS ANGELES - California Governor Gavin Newsom is accusing President Donald Trump of being reckless with the federal response to the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles County. What we know In an interview with FOX 11's Elex Michaelson, Newsom blasted Trump for sending the National Guard to LA County, which the California Governor claims is illegal and unconstitutional. "Donald Trump is reckless, he's immoral," Newsom said. "He's acting unlawfully. He's putting people's lives at risk. And it's my job to clean up Donald Trump's mess, because he's making it by the hour." Newsom's rant against Trump comes after the National Guard clashed with civilians – which includes anti-ICE protesters and agitators with no ties to immigration advocacy – on Sunday, June 8 in downtown Los Angeles. The California Governor claims Trump using the weekend of unrest in Los Angeles County for political gain by dividing the nation and undermining the rule of law and democracy. "It's been a disastrous presidency and so, of course, we're here with another distraction that puts, in this case, people's lives at risk, and he's testing the boundaries of the Constitution in a way that we can clearly argue is a constitutional crisis," Newsom told Michaelson on Sunday. The other side Trump accused Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of not getting the job done during the earlier stages of the 3-day protests in LA County. "If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved," Trump wrote on his Truth Social page. In a separate post, Trump claimed Newsom had been "incompetent," dating back to California's response to the Jan. 2025 wildfires. "We have an incompetent Governor (Newscum) and Mayor (Bass) who were, as usual (just look at how they handled the fires, and now their VERY SLOW PERMITTING disaster. Federal permitting is complete!), unable to to handle the task," Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Source This report used information provided by Elex Michaelson's interview with California Governor Gavin Newsom. President Donald Trump's responses were from his Truth Social account.


The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Nationwide injunctions are un-American — the Supreme Court must halt them now
Seventy-seven million Americans elected Donald Trump last November. They elected him to make us safer, to restore law and order, and to return common sense to our country. Since his inauguration, President Trump has carried out his promises to the American people, issuing executive orders on a range of policy objectives. That's how it should work in our country — the people choose the president and the president directs the executive branch to enact his agenda. In the opening months of the second Trump administration, however, we've seen a new resistance to Trump's policies. This resistance is anti-democratic and contrary to the rule of law. And it's coming from within the federal judiciary. Since Trump took office, federal district court judges have issued more than 40 nationwide injunctions blocking his agenda. That's on top of 64 issued during his first term, representing a majority of all the nationwide injunctions ever issued in American history. Often filed by liberal activists before sympathetic judges in carefully selected jurisdictions, a nationwide injunction enjoins conduct across the entire country. In this way, it departs from the proper role of a court in adjudicating a particularized dispute between clearly identified parties. Nationwide injunctions have no basis in American legal traditions or English common law. They violate principles of judicial restraint. And their increased use has serious consequences for constitutional order. The Constitution limits judicial power to only those 'cases' and 'controversies' before the courts. That makes sense. Judges shouldn't be issuing decisions that constrain people who never even set foot in the courtroom. But with a nationwide injunction, one federal judge can block a policy affecting millions, creating a judicial policy veto that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Beyond these clear constitutional problems, nationwide injunctions hurt the uniform and efficient administration of justice. These injunctions, especially when issued as temporary restraining orders, don't allow for thorough fact-finding, meaning appellate courts wind up reviewing an incomplete and inaccurate record. They also unfairly benefit special-interest plaintiffs who file identical suits in multiple jurisdictions, because the plaintiffs need only succeed in convincing one court, while the government must successfully defend every case in every jurisdiction. The rise of nationwide injunctions, and their obvious abuses during the first four months of the Trump administration, demand a response. In the House of Representatives, we've passed a bill drafted by Rep. Issa that would restrict a federal judge's ability to issue a nationwide injunction. It's up to the Senate to send it to the president's desk. The Judiciary Committee and its Courts Subcommittee, which we respectively chair, have held hearings and done oversight about the abuse of nationwide injunctions. We've urged congressional appropriators to use the power of the purse to force the judiciary to make reforms. And our work isn't done. But the institution that's best positioned to stop the abuse of nationwide injunctions sits just across from the Capitol Building. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week about nationwide injunctions in an immigration case. That appeal gives the court a chance to rein in the abuse of such injunctions and force lower-court judges to stick to their proper constitutional role. In his confirmation hearing before the Senate, Chief Justice John Roberts famously equated the job of a judge to that of a baseball umpire — calling balls and strikes, and nothing more. Applying his metaphor, a nationwide injunction would mean that an umpire's ball-and-strike call in Cleveland would apply to the game in San Diego, in Houston, and everywhere else. That wouldn't fly in our national past-time and it shouldn't be acceptable in our nation's courtrooms. Our nation is the greatest because 'We the People' have the ultimate authority. We are blessed to live in a democracy where the policy decisions are made by those elected to office — not by unaccountable bureaucrats or unelected judges. The policy agenda of a president elected by 77 million people shouldn't hinge on the separate approvals of 677 unelected district court judges. The Supreme Court must end the abuse of nationwide injunctions. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) oversees the House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) chairs its Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet.