Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court ruling in favor of Plaintiffs on cross-motions for summary judgment and enjoining the Montana Secretary of State from placing House Bill (HB) 325 on Montana's 2022 general election ballot, holding that the referendum proposal violates the Montana Constitution.If approved, HB 325 will establish seven Supreme Court districts in Montana and requires that Supreme Court justices be elected district by district, rather than statewide. Plaintiffs brought this challenge to the constitutionality of the measure. The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that the question of the constitutionality of the referendum proposed by HB 325 is ripe for judicial resolution; and (2) the district court did not err in enjoining the Secretary from placing HB 325 on the ballot in the 2022 general election. View "McDonald v. Jacobsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Appellant of incest for the sexual abuse of T.N. and sentencing her to 100 years in prison, holding that there was no error or abuse of proceedings in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not violate Defendant's "right to access witnesses" in denying her motion to to conduct pretrial interviews with T.N. and J.M.; (2) the State's failure to lodge with the district court forensic interviews from a different case did not violate Defendant's right to a fair trial, and Defendant was not entitled to a new trial on this ground; and (3) based on the totality of the evidence, this Court declines to employ the doctrine of plain error to review Defendant's claim that the district court should have given a specific unanimity instruction. View "State v. Mathis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction temporarily enjoining the implementation of three laws the Legislature enacted in 2021 that regulate or restrict abortion services, holding that there was no error of law or manifest abuse of discretion.In 2021, the Montana Legislature passed into law and the governor signed into law bills regulating or restricting abortions services and providing for various criminal penalties and civil remedies. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that Plaintiffs made a prima facie showing that the challenged laws violated their rights under the Montana Constitution and determining that Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury if the challenged laws took effect. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that either ground on which the district court granted a preliminary injunction would have been sufficient to justify relief. View "Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders entered by the Fourth and Eighteenth Judicial District Courts denying their requests for preliminary injunctions to enjoin the masking requirements of Defendants, school districts in Missoula and Gallatin Counties, that were adopted in response to the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, holding that the district courts did not err.Plaintiffs filed complaints and motions for preliminary injunctions shortly after Defendants' adoption of the masking policies for the 2021-2022 school year, seeking to enjoin the masking requirements based upon constitutional privacy, individual dignity, and parental rights. Both district courts denied the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district courts did not manifestly abuse their discretion by denying the preliminary injunctions. View "Stand Up Montana v. Missoula County Public Schools" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner's petition for postconviction relief, holding that the district court correctly denied the postconviction relief petition.After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of theft by common scheme for embezzling a sizable amount of money from a youth softball organization. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner later brought this postconviction petition alleging, among other claims, ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate deficiency in his appellate counsel's representation and that his remaining complaints were unsuitable grounds for postconviction relief. View "Crabtree v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress and remanded this case to the district court to vacate Defendant's conviction of criminal possession of dangerous drugs and use or possession of property subject to criminal forfeiture, holding the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.In his motion to suppress, Defendant claimed that law enforcement exceeded the scope of a lawful traffic stop by asking Defendant for his license and then questioning him behind the vehicle after learning that the license was valid. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the officer lawfully escalated his investigation from a traffic stop to an investigation of other criminal activity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officer did not possess the requisite particularized suspicion to expand the scope of the traffic stop into a criminal investigation. View "State v. Carrywater" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court in this criminal case, holding that the district court adequately considered evidence of Defendant's post-offense rehabilitation under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and imposed a constitutional sentence by striking a parole restriction.When he was seventeen years old, Defendant was charged with burglary and three counts of deliberate homicide. Defendant was convicted of all counts and sentenced to three consecutive life sentences without parole. Defendant later filed a successful postconviction petition seeking resentencing under Miller. After a resentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to three consecutive life terms at MSP without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court remanded the case. On remand, the district court resentenced him to three life sentences and did not restrict Defendant's eligibility for parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court complied with the Court's instructions on remand in Keefe II and imposed a legal sentence. View "Keefe v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for partner or family members assault (PFMA), unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and two counts of tampering with witnesses or informants but reversed the district court's imposition of various fees and costs on Defendant, holding that remand was required for an analysis of Defendant's ability to pay before imposing costs and fees.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the admission of certain hearsay statements was not harmless error; (2) Defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury was not violated; (3) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his argument that his right to confrontation was violated by the repeated emphasis on recorded jail phone calls; (4) the record was insufficient to review Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (5) the district court erred in imposing jury and other costs on Defendant without first undertaking an ability to pay inquiry. View "State v. Oliver" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for felony driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI), holding that there was no harmless error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not violate Defendant's right to equal protection by denying his Batson objection to the State's peremptory strike of the only racial minority member of the venire; (2) while one of the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument was erroneous, the prosecutor's remarks, considered cumulatively, did not violate Defendant's right to a fair trial; and (3) the district court did not err when it relied on one of Defendant's prior convictions to support enhancement of his DUI conviction to a felony offense and in determining that the prior conviction was constitutionally valid. View "State v. Wellknown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions for felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs and misdemeanor criminal possession of drug paraphernalia, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized after a vehicle search that resulted from an unlawfully prolonged investigative driving under the influence (DUI) stop. The district court denied the motion to suppress on the ground that the initial stop of Defendant was lawful based on a reasonable particularized suspicion of DUI. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) while Defendant was lawfully stopped on a reasonable particularized suspicion of DUI, the officers unlawfully prolonged the duration of the stop before subjecting Defendant to the confirmatory DUI field sobriety testing; and (2) therefore, the district court erroneously denied Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Zeimer" on Justia Law