On Tuesday, Missoula County District Court Judge Shane Vannatta of the 4th Judicial District Court ruled that Montana’s Senate Bill 458, a bill that defined trans people out of the law, was unconstitutional. The order was struck down on a technicality – it was determined that the bill’s title was vague due to there being multiple meanings of the term “sex,” along with a lack of clarity regarding the usage of the words “male” and “female” in the title. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that due to the ambiguity in the title, Montanans could come to the conclusion that the state is endorsing discrimination against transgender and intersex individuals.
“The court does not insert its opinion in this order as to what title should have been used or should be used,”Judge Vannatta said. “Rather, the court has concluded that the word ‘sex’ in the title has not been clearly distinguished (i.e.,intercourse or gender) and that the subject in the body of the Bill (providing a definition for ‘female and ‘male’) has not been identified in the title.”
Senate Bill 458 defines sex as strictly belonging to “males” and “females” based on chromosomes and gamete production, making no exception for intersex individuals and thus putting a halt to legal protections for transgender individuals. It redefined sex as such in 41 different legislative contexts, potentially upending the lives of many transgender Montanans. It was signed by Republican Governor Greg Gianforte, and it explicitly ignored the dominant scientific view that sex is a spectrum and can be changed, and is not strictly defined as ‘male’ or ‘female.’
The bill was introduced in 2023 during a Republican-majority legislature that was actively working to oppose transgender rights. The legislature had passed a bill, Senate Bill 99, that banned gender affirming care for minors, however it was later overturned by U.S. District Court Judge Jason Marks. They had also barred lawmaker Zooey Zephyr from the House floor during the legislative session after she pushed back against the gender affirming care ban, citing “decorum” while silencing one of the few transgender representatives in the state.
Judge Vannatta, in a 13-page summary judgement, detailed the arguments of both the plaintiffs and the State. The stated argument of the plaintiffs focused primarily on the vagueness of the bill’s title, whereas the State had little to say in its case. The only argument given by the state was that the bill is exempt from the “Single Subject Rule,” which details that bill titles need to be firmly about a single subject unless they are strictly defined as a general bill, by virtue of it containing “GENERALLY REVISING THE LAWS” in its title.
However, the plaintiffs argued that this bill was still too vague, and that even with adding something like “for the codification” of the law to it, it nevertheless would have left room for ambiguity. “Plaintiffs’ legal analysis on this point is persuasive. Past ‘codifications of the law’ have included the creation of a new code on a particular subject or a recodification of the Mont. Code Ann,” the judge continues, referring to the Annotated Montana Code that contains the state Constitution. “SB 458 is not a bill for the ‘codification and general revision of the laws’ of Montana, and its title does not indicate such. Therefore, SB 458 is not exempt from the requirements of Mont. Const. art. V, §11(3)”
The judge also stated that the title is misleading based on the lack of clarity of the term “sex” in the title and a complete lack of “male” or “female” within the title of the bill, and that while it is not his place to decide on what the title should be, he nevertheless has grounds to overturn it as it does not sufficiently explain its core subject matter in the title. He concludes by saying that he cannot “uphold” the constitutionality of the bill based on the lack of clarity in the title.
The case began on December 18, 2023, when the American Civil Liberties Union, along with attorneys from Holland & Hart LLP, filed a formal complaint with the court, entitled Dandilion Cloverdale et al. vs. Austin Knudsen et al, regarding the impact that this bill would have on its plaintiffs, who are all either transgender or intersex. The defendants in the case are Austin Knudsen, the Attorney General of Montana, and the entire state of Montana, which would be represented by the MT Department of Justice.
The complaint argues that they would be erased from the law had the bill been allowed to go into effect. They state, “In the face of that uncertainty the thousands of individuals who do not fall within the unscientific and unsupported definition of sex created by SB 458 must cope with feelings of shame and humiliation, are forced to publicly mis-identify themselves, and will otherwise be treated in a manner that does not accord with their gender identity,” the ACLU wrote in the complaint.”
The ACLU further argued that it was unconstitutional for the bill to go into law, as it would cause undue distress and even lead to discrimination against the plaintiffs – and thereby all transgender people in the state – by virtue of rewriting much of the law to invalidate trans people. They also made appeals based on the overreach of the bill being unconstitutional, as well as the vagueness the bill presents, which was ultimately the turning point for Judge Vannatta.
Alex Rate, Legal Director of the ACLU of Montana, said to Erin in the Morning, “Yesterday’s ruling by a district court in Montana that 458 is unconstitutional is just the latest repudiation of the slate of anti-trans policies that were enacted by the 2023 legislature.”
The MT Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment before the publication of this article.
This piece was republished with permission from Erin In The Morning.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.