MontanaProposal would limit which claims Montana courts can hear
The failed proposal would let Montana courts hear claims only when the person suing shows a specific injury, or an immediate threat, and a court remedy.
What it does
The proposal would let courts decide a claim only if the person suing shows a specific injury, or an immediate threat of injury, caused by the party sued and a remedy the court can provide.
Objecting to a government policy as a citizen, resident, or taxpayer would not be enough by itself to sue. Neither would a speculative fear or a court's view that an issue matters to the public.
Argument forCourts might focus on claims where the person suing shows a real harm caused by the other party and a remedy the court can provide.
Argument againstPeople challenging a policy as citizens or taxpayers might have fewer ways to ask a court to review it without showing personal harm.
More detail
The proposal would limit courts to deciding claims brought by people who meet its standing test. The test would apply to claimants seeking relief from another party in Montana courts. Unless another law provides otherwise, claimants would need to show a specific injury or an immediate threat of injury, caused by the party they sue, and a court remedy that would work. It would apply to legal proceedings started on or after July 1, 2025.
The proposal would say that certain concerns alone do not establish standing. The limits cover claims based only on being a citizen, resident, or taxpayer who objects to government policy, as well as claims based on a court's view that an issue is important or likely to recur. A threatened harm would need to be real, direct, and immediate, not speculative. These limits would apply to legal proceedings started on or after July 1, 2025.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Died
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2025
- May 23(S) Died in ProcessDied
- Apr 10(H) 2nd ReadingMinor
- Vote recorded Do Concur. Result: fail.Lower
- Apr 10(H) Scheduled for 2nd ReadingMinor
- Apr 8(H) Committee Report - (H) Judiciary
- Vote recorded be_concurred_in. Result: pass.Lower
- Apr 8(H) Committee Executive Action - (H) Judiciary
- Mar 28(H) Hearing - (H) Judiciary
- Mar 6(H) 1st Reading
- Mar 5(H) Referred to Committee - (H) JudiciaryMinor
- Mar 4(S) Transmitted to House
- Vote recorded Do Pass. Result: pass.Upper
- Mar 4(S) 3rd Reading
- Mar 4(S) Scheduled for 3rd ReadingMinor
- Mar 3(S) 2nd ReadingMinor
- Vote recorded Do Pass. Result: pass.Upper
- Mar 3(S) Scheduled for 2nd ReadingMinor
- Feb 28(S) Committee Report - (S) Judiciary
- Vote recorded do_pass. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 28(S) Committee Executive Action - (S) Judiciary
- Feb 27(S) Hearing - (S) Judiciary
- Feb 21(S) Referred to Committee - (S) JudiciaryMinor
- Feb 21(S) 1st Reading
- Feb 21(S) Introduced
- Feb 21(LC) Draft Delivered to Requester
- Feb 20(LC) Draft Ready for Delivery
- Feb 20(LC) Draft in Assembly
- Feb 20(LC) Draft in Final Drafter Review
- Feb 19(LC) Draft in Input/Proofing
- Feb 15(LC) Draft in Edit
- Feb 12(LC) Draft in Legal Review
- Jan 9(LC) Drafter AssignedIntroduced
Government & Ethics