Blair Miller, Daily Montanan

Montana AG's misconduct hearing to proceed after Supreme Court denies request to vacate

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s hearing before a Commission on Practice adjudication panel regarding the 41 counts of professional misconduct he faces will proceed as scheduled and start on Wednesday morning after the Montana Supreme Court on Tuesday denied Knudsen’s latest request to have the hearing vacated and the five-member panel replaced.

Knudsen’s attorneys, including Montana Solicitor General Christian Corrigan, on Monday filed a last-minute request with the Montana Supreme Court that it step in and either vacate the hearing, agree to make changes to testimony already denied by the Commission on Practice, replace the entire panel, or push the trial back.

The panel is made up of three attorneys and two citizen members appointed by the Montana Supreme Court.

Similar requests from Knudsen, whose trial is scheduled to start Wednesday and possibly continue through Friday, were denied last week and in previous weeks by the Commission on Practice.

Once the hearing this week is complete, the adjudication panel will compile findings of fact and conclusions of law and make a recommendation to the Supreme Court on what, if any, discipline Knudsen should face. Knudsen will be allowed to object to those recommendations.

The Supreme Court could dismiss all counts against Knudsen, but if it agrees with the recommendations, he could be sanctioned as an attorney, which could include probation, public or private admonitions, public censure, suspension, or disbarment.

***

Knudsen had argued that allowing Supreme Court administrator Beth McLaughlin to possibly testify and be cross-examined remotely, and not allowing a former Utah Supreme Court justice he wanted to use as an expert witness in the case, deprived him of his due process in the matter. He also had objected to two people on the adjudicatory panel’s participation, but those people had already been substituted or recused themselves from the hearing.

The four justices who signed Tuesday’s order said because the two panel members Knudsen objected to have already been substituted and because Knudsen will have a future opportunity to object to the Commission on Practice’s rulings and recommendations, the request for a writ of supervisory control was denied.

“In this case, Knudsen has provided no reason why the Commission’s ruling cannot be reviewed under (Montana Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement) 16. As provided in the disciplinary rules, Knudsen will have opportunity to object to the Commission’s rulings and recommendation in due course,” the court wrote.

The four justices who signed Tuesday’s order were Chief Justice Mike McGrath and Justices Jim Shea, Beth Baker and Ingrid Gustafson.

During the past month, Knudsen sought to have the Commission on Practice force McLaughlin to appear as a witness in person. McLaughlin was originally set to do so when the adjudication panel hearing was scheduled for July, but will be at a pre-scheduled county clerks’ meeting for the rescheduled hearing, set for Oct. 9, 10, and 11.

But he said that not being able to cross-examine her in person deprived him of his due process, calling her a “key witness” in the ethics complaint against him because she was at the center of the fight between the Legislature and the court over records tied to a bill doing away with the Judicial Nominating Commission in 2021. Knudsen’s attorneys wrote in the Supreme Court request that “questions about her credibility are key to Petitioner’s defense.”

Knudsen had also objected to the Commission on Practice’s decision to exclude any expert witness testimony from former Utah Supreme Court Justice Thomas Lee at the hearing. Both objections were based on Knudsen’s contention that he was not given the proper time to respond to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s motions regarding both McLaughlin and Lee before the Commission on Practice handed down its decisions on those two matters.

He had also objected to two members who were originally assigned the panel — Patricia Klanke and Lois Menzies. Klanke had represented Justice Jim Rice in a lawsuit he brought related to the fight between the Legislature and Supreme Court in 2021. Menzies worked at the Judicial Nominating Commission, eliminated by that 2021 bill, and alongside McLaughlin. Knudsen argued having both on the panel “taints the entire panel and deprives a plaintiff of procedural due process.”

The Commission said in filings that both had recused themselves but neither had participated in the proceedings against Knudsen to date. Kndusen’s attorneys wondered if that meant Commission panel chair Randall Ogle had made the decisions that went against Knudsen’s preferred outcomes on his own and without a quorum.

But in orders handed down during the past week, the Commission disagreed with Knudsen on almost every contention. It said McLaughlin would testify remotely from the conference unless the hearing goes to Friday, at which time she would be able to testify in person from 2 to 5 p.m. It also denied his motion to include Lee as an expert witness.

Another order said Menzies, one of the panelists to which Knudsen had objected, had not participated in the matter, had no knowledge of the facts, and disputed Knudsen’s contention she could not be fair and impartial. But she decided to recuse herself “out of an abundance of caution and to protect the integrity of the process,” according to the filing.

On Friday, the Commission also denied Knudsen’s motion to vacate the hearing, saying the two panel members he had objected to had recused themselves and been replaced so that it has a quorum of five members, three of whom are attorneys.

The denial of his requests led to Knudsen’s Monday filing of the request for a writ of supervisory control with the Supreme Court. He referred to the decisions made by the commission thus far as “compounding errors” that undermined his ability to defend himself.

“This conduct raises a real concern that the Commission is focused not on taking the requisite time to resolve Petitioner’s legitimate claims for relief, but on rushing ahead to a disciplinary hearing whatever the cost,” he had argued.

But in the Supreme Court’s four-page order Tuesday, it said his objections to the two panelists had already been resolved, and he still had remedies regarding testimony and evidence moving forward.

“MRLDE 16 provides that a party subject to a recommendation for discipline from the Commission has the right to file objections with this court,” the order said. “The evidentiary errors Knudsen alleges thus may be remedied on review if the Commission has erred in its rulings.”

As such, Knudsen’s hearing in front of the adjudication panel will begin at 9 a.m. Wednesday in the Supreme Court chambers in Helena.

The hearing comes more than a year after a person filed a grievance against Knudsen alleging professional misconduct and the undermining of the judiciary regarding his communications and actions during the 2021 court fight over judicial appointments and email records between the Supreme Court and the Legislature, the latter of whom he was representing.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel reviewed the grievance to conclude ethical violations had occurred, submitted its findings to a Commission on Practice review panel, which then allowed the ODC to file the 41-count complaint with a separate panel. Knudsen and his attorneys have denied the allegations in the complaint throughout the process and called them politically motivated.

But in September, the Commission on Practice allowed all of the counts to move forward to the October hearing and denied there was political motivation behind the investigation or where it has gotten to this point.

“Contrary to the respondent’s repeated pronouncements that these proceedings are political in nature, they clearly are not,” the commission said. “No allegation is asserted or implied in the complaint that the charges are based on anything other than claimed violations of the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct by an attorney.”

Knudsen, a Republican, faces Democratic challenger Ben Alke in the Nov. 5 election.

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com. Follow Daily Montanan on Facebook and X.

Hunters kill grizzly bear that reportedly charged them north of West Yellowstone

Two hunters who were reportedly charged by a grizzly bear on Monday north of West Yellowstone shot and killed the bear and also shot and injured one of her cubs, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks said on Friday.

The incident happened in Tepee Creek; the two hunters were not injured, spokesperson Morgan Jacobsen said. They reported being charged by the sow, who had two yearling cubs along with her.

FWP said the hunters shot and killed the sow with handguns and that the yearlings also charged the two people. One of them was shot and injured, Jacobsen said.

FWP bear specialists and game wardens, along with Custer Gallatin National Forest law enforcement, went to the site on Wednesday and confirmed the sow, an older female, was dead. They found evidence that one of the yearlings had been injured but did not locate either of the cubs.

FWP said it plans no further management actions but said the shooting is still under investigation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Montana’s archery season opened on Sept. 7, and while no other hunters have reported injuries in bear conflicts, and no other bears have been wounded or killed so far this season by hunters, FWP reminded hunters to carry bear spray, make noise and travel in groups, to avoid areas where close encounters with bears could occur, and to be aware of bear sign and how other animal calls could affect bear behavior.

Montana Supreme Court strikes down abortion parental consent law

The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously struck down Montana’s 2013 law requiring minors to get consent from a parent to obtain an abortion as unconstitutional, saying it violates their right to privacy and that the state had shown no compelling interest existed for imposing the extra requirements.

The court’s opinion, written by Justice Laurie McKinnon, upholds a Lewis and Clark County District Court’s decision from February 2023, which also found that the law, which has been enjoined for 11 years, violated the Montana Constitution and the Supreme Court’s prior holdings in Armstrong vs. State of Montana and Weems vs. State of Montana.

In the Armstrong decision, the court found that a person’s right to privacy in the constitution includes the right to procreative autonomy. The Weems decision expanded the scope of providers that were allowed to perform abortions in Montana.

McKinnon wrote in the opinion on the Consent Act released Wednesday that the legislature, in passing the act, created a classification for minors seeking abortions separate from pregnant minors who are not seeking abortions, which she wrote “violates the fundamental right of a minor to control their body and destiny … without adequate justification from the State, and cannot be sustained against Plaintiffs’ privacy and equal protection challenges.”

“A minor’s right to dignity, autonomy, and the right to choose are embedded in the liberties found in the Montana Constitution,” McKinnon wrote. “Because a minor’s right to control her reproductive decisions is among the most fundamental of the rights she possesses, and because the State has failed to demonstrate a real and significant relationship between the statutory classification and the ends asserted, we hold that the Consent Act violates the Constitution of the State of Montana.”

Martha Fuller, the chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood of Montana, the lead plaintiff in the case against the state and Attorney General Austin Kndusen, said the court’s long-awaited decision affirms that minors in Montana have the same right to privacy as adults.

Gov. Greg Gianforte claps before signing five abortion laws on May 3, 2023. (Photo by Nicole Girten/Daily Montanan)

“This decision affirms the right to privacy and we are pleased that the Court upheld the fundamental rights of Montanans today,” Fuller said in a statement. “Montanans deserve the ability to make private medical decisions and have the ability to access abortion care if that is what is best for patients and families.”

A spokesperson for Knudsen, whose office appealed the case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a statement, Gov. Greg Gianforte criticized the court’s decision.

“As a strong defender of parental rights, I’m deeply concerned and disappointed by today’s ruling from the Montana Supreme Court, which states parents do not have a fundamental right to oversee the medical care of their young daughters,” Gianforte said in a statement. “In its ruling, the court has wielded its gavel like a hammer against one of the fundamental rights in our history: the right of parents to consent to the medical care of their minor children.”

Both Republicans have pushed for, and defended, abortion restrictions the governor has signed into law during their time in office and have often seen those laws struck down by Montana courts as unconstitutional.

Long road to decision

Like the lower court decision, the Supreme Court also did not take up the Parental Notice of Abortion Act that voters passed in 2012 and is still being litigated, though the Consent Act was passed by lawmakers to repeal the Notice Act before it was enjoined with the consent of then-Attorney General Tim Fox.

After the injunction was granted, a district court judge said that the state could not defend either the Notice or Consent Acts because it had not appealed a decision in 1999, though that decision was appealed and overturned by the Supreme Court. In 2022, Knudsen withdrew the consent from the injunction, leading to the 2023 district court decision and the litigation at the Supreme Court.

District Court Judge Christopher Abbott in 2023 found the Consent Act infringed on Montanans’ right to privacy and that the act was not narrowly tailored to achieve the state’s purported interests in protecting minors against sexual offenses, monitoring mental health, being sure minors were making good decisions and promoting parental rights.

But he found the Notice Act’s provisions were “starkly different and much less onerous,” and declined to make a decision on that act. The state appealed his decision on the Consent Act, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from the two sides this past March.

The Consent Act put numerous additional requirements on minors and providers surrounding abortions and getting consent from a parent or legal guardian for a minor, and included penalties for providers who did not follow the rules, including fines, jail and prison time. It contained a provision for a minor to petition a court for counsel to represent them if they show parents were abusive or it was in the minor’s best interests.

Planned Parenthood argued that the law was not narrowly tailored to meet the state’s interests because it created two classes of minors – ones who seek to have an abortion and those who want to carry their pregnancies to term.

Supreme Court finds Consent Act violates constitutional rights

The Supreme Court agreed, writing that the act infringes on a minor’s right to privacy “because it conditions a minor’s obtaining an abortion on parental consent or obtaining a judicial waiver, something a minor choosing to carry her pregnancy to term would not have to do.”

McKinnon wrote that the state Constitution gives minors the full rights of adults in Montana, that the Armstrong and Weems decisions had already established abortion is a safe medical procedure and not a bona fide health risk, and that the state had hardly mentioned either case as it tried to make its claims the act was protecting minors.

“All the Consent Act does is permit the parent to refuse consent to a pregnancy that has already occurred,” McKinnon wrote in the opinion. “…The Consent Act’s imposition of onerous and burdensome requirements designed to prevent evasion of the parental consent requirement by requiring notarization, government identification, proof of parentage, and a physician affidavit do not meaningfully assist in the prevention of sexual victimization of minors nor do they prevent the evasion of parental notice requirements.”

McKinnon further wrote that the state’s position in arguing the case is “illogical”: “Minors who choose to carry their pregnancies are not at risk of making an immature decision, while those choosing abortion must be protected against their immaturity.”

McKinnon wrote that the act presumes a minor is too immature to make their own decision on an abortion but not too immature to become a mother who is fully responsible for a child’s life.

People opposing Senate Bill 99 and anti-abortion bills at the Montana Legislature rallied inside the Capitol on April 7, 2023. (Photo by Blair Miller, Daily Montanan)

And she added that parents who do not make decisions in their children’s best interest could control the child under the Consent Act, goes beyond family involvement and guidance and could potentially put the family in conflict with one another if the parent and child disagreed about the decision to get an abortion.

“Any parental right that exists within this framework is a right to parent free from state interference, not a right to enlist the state’s powers to gain greater control over a child or to make it more difficult for a minor to exercise their fundamental rights,” McKinnon wrote.

The opinion also says that requiring a judicial waiver could further delay a minor’s decision over an abortion, which could create further risks in the pregnancy and induce further costs and time that especially marginalized communities might not be able to handle. McKinnon wrote the choice to carry a pregnancy to term is “the most intimate and personal decision” someone could make.

McKinnon was joined in the opinion by Justices Jim Shea, Ingrid Gustafson, Dirk Sandefur, Beth Baker, and District Court Judge Elizabeth Best, who was sitting in for Chief Justice Mike McGrath because he recused himself from the case.

Justice Jim Rice concurred with the other justices in a separate opinion in which he agreed with the conclusions, but voiced concerns about how long it took for the case to be decided by Montana courts and said he felt pregnant minors seeking an abortion should be compared to pregnant adults seeking one, and not to pregnant minors who are not seeking an abortion.

Wednesday’s decision is the latest victory in Montana courts for people and groups seeking to uphold abortion access under the constitutional right to privacy and Armstrong decision.

Montana voters are also likely to vote on a constitutional amendment this November, CI-128, that seeks to put those protections in the state Constitution for good. Montana’s secretary of state has an Aug. 22 deadline to certify ballot issues qualified for November, and the group behind the measure has gathered the necessary number of signatures, it has said.

McKinnon wrote in the opinion that the justices were not there to decide the ethical questions swirling around abortion, simply whether the Consent Act violated Montanans’ constitutional rights.

“We emphasize that our decision is not based on, nor do we presume to answer, the profound questions about the moral, medical, and societal implications of abortion,” she wrote. “At the end of the day, those questions are left to the woman who must decide for herself.”

Hydrothermal explosion causes damage in area of Yellowstone National Park

A hydrothermal explosion in Yellowstone National Park damaged a boardwalk and sent debris several stories into the air Tuesday morning in the Biscuit Basin area northwest of Old Faithful, according to the scientist-in-charge at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Yellowstone Volcano Observatory.

The explosion, which Scientist-in-Charge Michael Poland said was a “small” one, happened around 10 a.m. Tuesday about 2.1 miles northwest of Old Faithful, likely in the Black Diamond Pool in Biscuit Basin, Poland said.

Poland said in an information statement early Tuesday afternoon there had so far been no injuries reported in the explosion.

Videos posted online by people who witnessed the explosion showed several people on the boardwalk close to where the explosion occurred, and videos of the aftermath show debris across the area and a damaged boardwalk.

Biscuit Basin’s parking lot and boardwalks are temporarily closed for safety; Yellowstone National Park geologists are investigating the explosion but say data shows no out-of-the-ordinary volcanic activity.

“Monitoring data show no changes in the Yellowstone region. Today’s explosion does not reflect activity within the volcanic system, which remains at normal background levels of activity,” Poland said in a statement. “Hydrothermal explosions like that of today are not a sign of impending volcanic eruptions, and they are not caused by magma rising towards the surface.”

He said these types of explosions happen when water quickly changes to steam underground and they are “relatively common” in Yellowstone National Park.

There was a similar explosion in Biscuit Bay in May 2009 and a smaller explosion in Norris Geyser Basin on April 15. Porkchop Geyser in Norris Geyser Basin exploded in 1989.

Hydrothermal explosions often send boiling water, steam, mud and rock into the air and can reach heights of up to 1.2 miles, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It said in a 2018 report that large hydrothermal explosions happen on average every 700 years. At least 25 craters have been identified in the park that are at least 328 feet wide, according to the report.

“Although large hydrothermal explosions are rare events on a human time scale, the potential for additional future events of the sort in Yellowstone National Park is not insignificant,” the report says. “Based on the occurrence of large hydrothermal explosion events over the past 16,000 years, an explosion large enough to create a 100-meter (328-ft-) wide crater might be expected every few hundred years.

According to the National Park Service, Black Diamond Pool erupted black, murky water following an earthquake in July 2006 and saw “several explosive eruptions” in the days after, though eruptions have been “infrequent” since then. Its average temperature is 148.5 degrees Fahrenheit.

The public affairs office for Yellowstone National Park pointed the Daily Montanan to the news release from the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory and said no further information was immediately available early Tuesday afternoon.

The Yellowstone Volcano Observatory said it would release more information as it becomes available.

Ex-fiancée who accused Montana Republican of abuse drops protection order

Montana Senate President Jason Ellsworth said Tuesday his ex-fiancée’s domestic abuse claims in a request for a protection order granted May 2 were not true, and attorneys for both filed a stipulated agreement granted Tuesday by a justice of the peace to vacate the protection order.

The Montana Free Press first reported news of the protection order and the domestic abuse allegations contained in the original filing on Monday evening, leading the Montana Democratic Party to call for Ellsworth’s resignation on Tuesday morning.

Ellsworth, a Hamilton Republican, said in a statement through his attorney that his ex-fiancée “unwisely and without representation filed claims against me that are not true.” The Daily Montanan is not naming Ellsworth’s ex-fiancée because the original complaint alleged domestic abuse against her.

“She prepared her petition in May on her own when she was angry that I still wanted her to return my property after I ended our relationship in March,” Ellsworth said in the statement. “She has voluntarily dismissed her claims and has conceded that she does not require any orders for her protection, which is correct. I have not been abusive and do not wish her or her daughter any harm. We were there for each other for six years. Sadly, that came to an end earlier this year. We are both moving on respectfully.”

Ellsworth has not been charged with any related crimes in Lewis and Clark County, according to court records from October 2022 to the present and court records searches in other counties.

However, he was charged in May 2021 for obstructing a law enforcement officer who stopped him for speeding, and a video of that incident was released Tuesday by Lee Enterprises, which had gone to court for the record. Ellsworth pleaded guilty to that charge and apologized to the trooper in court for attempting to get out of the ticket.

Abuse allegations lead to protection order

The woman applied for the temporary order of protection on May 2 – the final day of the legislative session this year – and a Lewis and Clark County justice of the peace granted it the same day. The Daily Montanan obtained the application and protection order Tuesday.

Courts routinely grant temporary protection orders to ensure the safety of victims.

The woman alleged in the application for the order Ellsworth had shoved and choked her, pushed her down stairs, damaged walls in her home and thrown objects like his phone when he was angry — allegations Ellsworth denied in a statement and in the stipulated agreement.

She wrote that in an incident at her home in what she believed to be October 2022, in the midst of an argument, Ellsworth grabbed a handgun, loaded it and laid on top of the woman trying to get her to shoot him. She also wrote that she tried to grab her phone to call 911 but Ellsworth had smashed it.

The woman wrote that Ellsworth was “saying he wanted to die” and that he was waving the gun around and pointing it at her and upstairs, trying to force her into grabbing it.

She said that since then, she had made Ellsworth get his belongings and move out of the house. She said she had blocked his calls and texts, but that Ellsworth was continuing to email her and leave notes on her truck in front of her house.

“I’ve asked him to leave me alone and to not ever come back to my residence,” the woman wrote. “I’m scared and so is my daughter that he’ll show up and try to come inside.”

She also wrote that Ellsworth “possesses hundreds of firearms at his home but probable [sic] has 2-3 with him.”

The order forced Ellsworth to stay at least 1,500 feet away from the woman, her home, workplace, vehicle, child and child’s school. It also ordered Ellsworth not to communicate with the woman and not to possess firearms.

However, the stipulated agreement says that Ellsworth “has had no contact” with the woman since the order, and that she “does not require judicial intervention or entry of a permanent order for her protection.”

“Petitioner requests the Court vacate its temporary orders. Respondent stipulates to the non-suit and to vacating the temporary orders immediately. Respondent disputes the facts presented in the petition and has agreed to waive his rights to a hearing to contest the allegations upon petitioner non-suiting this action and the Court vacating its temporary orders,” states the agreement to withdraw the protection order, which was signed by the woman’s attorney, William Hooks, and Ellsworth’s attorney, Joan Mell.

An employee at the Lewis and Clark County Justice Court confirmed Tuesday afternoon a justice of the peace had signed the order vacating the protection order and the pending court date.

The woman’s attorney, Hooks with the Montana Legal Services Association, provided a statement from her Tuesday afternoon after the protection order was dropped.

“When I filed the petition for an order of protection, I knew that I made my statements under oath. We have now resolved the case. As a result, he and I are not now in contact, and we will not be in contact in the future,” the woman said.

Earlier Tuesday, prior to the stipulated agreement being filed in court, Montana Democratic Party Executive Director Sheila Hogan called on Ellsworth to resign over the allegations contained in the original application for the protection order.

“The allegations against Senator Ellsworth are profoundly upsetting and disqualifying. The halls of the Montana State Capitol should be a place where everyone feels safe, and Montanans deserve to be represented by leaders they trust,” Hogan said in a statement.

A spokesperson for the Montana GOP did not immediately return a text message seeking comment on the original allegations or the call from Democrats for Ellsworth’s resignation, and the chairman of the Ravalli County Republican Central Committee did not return an email seeking comment on the protection order.

Video released of Ellsworth’s speeding violation

Also Tuesday, a video of Ellsworth being pulled over by a Montana Highway Patrol trooper near Townsend in May 2021 for driving 30 miles an hour over the speed limit was released by the Lee Newspapers Montana State News Bureau, which fought in court to have the video made public.

The traffic stop happened around 10:20 p.m., and Ellsworth had said he was speeding so he could make it to an interim committee meeting in Helena the next morning at 8:30.

Ellsworth would plead guilty in August 2021 to obstructing a peace officer for telling the trooper multiple times that he should be released from the stop because of his legislative privileges and threatening to call the attorney general. Lawmakers are protected from arrest while traveling to and from the legislature, “unless apprehended in the commission of a felony or a breach of the peace.” Ellsworth apologized to the trooper in court, acknowledging she was “doing her duty as a civil servant.”

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com. Follow Daily Montanan on Facebook and Twitter.

Judge tells lawyers to prepare for trial in Montana

A Lewis and Clark County District Court judge told attorneys for the state and for a group of young Montanans suing over Montana’s fossil fuel policies and stance that they should "prepare for trial" in a month despite efforts by the state to get the case halted or dismissed.

The state and Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen had asked Judge Kathy Seeley to dismiss remaining parts of the case involving 16 plaintiffs tied to the state energy policy, which was repealed by House Bill 170, which Gov. Greg Gianforte signed into law in March.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued in court Friday that bill and another introduced and passed late in the session in response to a judge’s decision about greenhouse gas emissions at a NorthWestern Energy power plant in Laurel – House Bill 971, which Gianforte signed this week – involved efforts to derail the trial by changing the parts of Montana law the original lawsuit targets.

“I would suggest you continue to prepare for trial until you get an order,” Seeley told attorneys from both parties when a Department of Environmental Quality attorney suggested a trial would not be necessary. “… I’m not intending to just stop everything so that we can spend months wrapped around that spoke.”

In 2020, the 16 Montana children – then between ages 2 and 18 – sued the state, the DEQ, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, the Department of Transportation and the Montana Public Service Commission, alleging that the state’s work with, and promotion of, industries that emit greenhouse gases is violating the Montana Constitution and its guarantee that the state and every resident “maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations” by contributing to climate change.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that burning fossil fuels – primarily for energy and transportation purposes – is the top contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in the U.S.

Assistant Attorney General Michael D. Russell argued on behalf of the state Friday, as the Attorney General’s Office has throughout filings this spring, that the judge should issue a summary judgment in the case before it goes to trial because the changes to the state energy policy and Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) made by the legislature and signed into law render the original claims moot.

Russell told the court that the plaintiffs’ assertion to a constitutional right to a stable climate system would lead to “absurd results” if enforced because of the global nature of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, saying that such a decision would render any greenhouse gas emissions whatsoever unconstitutional.

“According to plaintiffs, every single molecule of CO2 introduces global warming,” he said. “Take it to its logical conclusion. That means every breath I take is a constitutional violation.”

Attorney Roger Sullivan, representing the plaintiffs, said that statement demonstrated the state had no articulate position and that the plaintiffs’ filings all show that the harm alleged – that climate change caused by the burning of greenhouse gases that is affecting the plaintiffs’ current and future livelihoods – stems from the state’s policies and actions.

Some of the original claims from the 2020 lawsuit have already been ruled out of the court’s jurisdiction, but the state asked for a summary judgment in the case last month, claiming that both sides would benefit if a decision were made in either of their respective favor.

“Either outcome eliminates significant expense and benefits judicial efficiency, which weighs heavily in favor of concrete resolution of the applicable legal questions,” the state said in an February filing.

Russell said the court should not rely on the “emotional” appeals made by the plaintiffs and argued that the remaining claims are relief “are without the sufficient legal basis to move forward.”

But Sullivan said that even the new changes made under House Bill 170 and House Bill 971 do not effectively change how the state agencies have been granting permits, saying that he believes the state has never denied a permit linked to burning fossil fuels, and that the changes to statute could still be considered at a trial.

The final version of HB971 says environmental reviews of projects cannot include evaluations of greenhouse gas emissions and their impact to the climate unless it’s done by the state and federal governments, or if Congress puts carbon emissions under the umbrella of those regulated under the federal Clean Air Act.

It is one of several bills passed by the legislature this session that seek to respond to a Yellowstone County judge’s decision about greenhouse gas emissions at the under-construction power plant in Laurel, and to lawsuits during the past several years from environmental nonprofit groups that have stymied energy and mining operations because of their effects on the environment.

Sullivan argued that the bill merely clarified state statute and MEPA exclusions, while the state said the changes were substantial enough to call into question whether the lawsuit should even proceed to trial because it believes the court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction to consider the case.

Sullivan said it would be a “sinister move” to take the trial, which is scheduled to start June 12, off the table and deny the plaintiffs their long-awaited chance in court, adding that he believes that HB971 “does nothing more than corroborate the plaintiffs’ position” and does not change the intent of the lawsuit surrounding the constitutional questions.

Seeley told the attorneys for the state she did not find their claims “to be nearly as substantive to the issues in the case as you do” but she would allow them to make their argument ahead of the trial.

Seeley did not issue any rulings on Friday but could early next week, a court clerk said. Should the case proceed to trial, it will be the first out of many lawsuits from Our Children’s Trust, which filed the lawsuit, to go all the way to trial.

Montana Supreme Court reprimands Anaconda judge for sexual remarks made about witness

The Montana Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a Third Judicial District Court judge from Anaconda on Thursday for violating judicial ethics rules when he made sexual comments about a witness in the hallway of the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Courthouse last year.

District Judge Raymond Dayton will begin a 30-day suspension without pay on Saturday and will not be able to appear back on the bench until June 12, according to a stipulated agreement Dayton reached with the Judicial Standards Commission in early April that was accepted by the Supreme Court on May 2.

As part of his punishment, he faced the state’s high court Thursday for a public reprimand in Helena.

A person filed a complaint with the Judicial Standards Commission last August claiming Dayton had made comments that were sexual in nature about a witness who alleged she had been stalked by a person in a case that was before his court at the time and in another case, according to court documents signed by Dayton and Judicial Standards Commission Chairman Judge Mike Menahan.

Dayton made the comments – which were not specified in the documents – on Aug. 11 in the public hallway of the courthouse and were heard by other court employees. Supreme Court Chief Justice Mike McGrath said Thursday at Dayton’s reprimand hearing that Dayton had made the comments to a justice of the peace after a court hearing.

After an investigation, the commission found he had violated a rule of the Canons of Judicial Conduct that says a judge should at all times act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary and avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Dayton agreed to accept the suspension and public reprimand from the commission and to not discuss the complaint with the person who filed it or any witnesses, talk about it with anyone else, or to retaliate for the complaint.

McGrath handed down Dayton’s reprimand on Thursday.

“Your comments were offensive to women and highly derogatory toward a witness in both court proceedings,” McGrath said. “The comments indicate your lack of respect not only for the witness but for the ongoing legal process as well.”

McGrath told Dayton his conduct “undermines the integrity of the office” and did not promote public confidence in the judiciary.

“We have determined that your conduct has eroded public confidence in the judiciary and created an appearance of impropriety in violation of the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct,” he said.

With a few witnesses in the audience, Dayton thanked the court and left the hearing. Outside the chambers, Dayton declined to comment to the Daily Montanan on the incident or his punishment.

He told The Montana Standard earlier this month that he had made the comments in the courthouse “in jest” in a conversation he thought was private. He said he accepted the punishment and would “continue to endeavor to perform my duties to the best of my ability.”

Dayton was first elected to the district court that covers Anaconda-Deer Lodge, Granite and Powell counties in 2006, when he defeated Christopher Miller 49% to 41%. In subsequent retention elections in 2012 and 2018, when he ran unopposed, Dayton was retained by 83% and 85% of voters, respectively.

Dayton’s suspension is the first handed down to a Montana judge since 2020, when a Yellowstone County judge was suspended 30 days without pay for admitting to six counts of misconduct related to false statements, accepting political endorsements and making campaign donations to partisan candidates, the Billings Gazette reported.

Six years earlier, another Yellowstone County judge was issued a suspension and censure by the Supreme Court for comments he made about a 14-year-old rape victim and sentencing the perpetrator to 30 days in jail, the Gazette reported.

Montana House cancels Tuesday floor session as leadership considers response to Zephyr protests

The Montana House canceled its floor session on Tuesday as Republican leadership determines its next steps following Monday’s protest in the chamber that led to the arrests of seven people.

House Speaker Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, held a brief news conference Tuesday morning in which he said Monday was “a dark day” for the state and admonished members of the Montana press for how it characterized his handling of Rep. Zooey Zephyr, D-Missoula, on the House floor during the past week. He said “the entire story was not told.”

“Headlines that have happened over the last week stating that the Montana House leadership or GOP has silenced anyone is false,” Regier said. “Currently, all representatives are free to participate in House debate while following the House rules. The choice not to follow House rules is one that Representative Zephyr has made. The only person silencing Representative Zephyr is Representative Zephyr.”

He said that the House “will not be bullied” and that he will continue to treat all members of the chamber “the same,” then walked back into his office without taking questions.

A spokesperson for House Republicans came out minutes later to say the House floor session had been canceled, which the House sergeant-at-arms had already confirmed.

Rep. Zooey Zephyr, D-Missoula, gestures to members of the public in the gallery who were being removed for being disruptive, and chanting, “Let her speak” in the Montana House on April 24, 2023 (Photo by Blair Miller for the Daily Montanan).

The protests came in the wake of the lack of recognition on the floor for Zephyr, which Regier last week said was happening because she had broken House decorum rules by telling Republicans they should be ashamed of themselves for voting in favor of Senate Bill 99. The bill would ban gender-affirming care for minors in Montana if signed by the governor.

House Minority Leader Kim Abbott, D-Helena, had earlier on Tuesday told reporters there was not likely to be a floor session – though neither party leader said exactly why. Rep. Casey Knudsen, R-Malta, said it was so leadership could decide the next steps in the saga and whether to pursue further action against Zephyr, such as censuring her.

Abbott said most of her discussions with Regier had been “administrative in nature” and that both had tried to keep one another apprised of their next steps.

But she said she was disappointed in the statement Regier, Speaker Pro Tem Rhonda Knudsen and Majority Leader Sue Vinton released Monday evening in which they called what transpired Monday a “riot by far-left agitators” which they said “endangered legislators and staff.”

“We all watched that together and it wasn’t a violent protest. It was disruptive, it was chanting, but it was not violent. There was no need for a SWAT team,” Abbott said. “I was disappointed in the way the protest was framed given the extreme actions to silence a sitting member. They should expect a public protest; I wouldn’t expect anything less.”

Abbott said as a former organizer for the Montana Human Rights Network, she was not surprised at the protest. Law enforcement booked and released seven demonstrators Monday on misdemeanor trespassing charges.

“This is the people’s House. They came in, made their statement. I think that’s absolutely part of democracy and civil society, and that’s what we saw yesterday,” she said. “Sometimes extreme measures have a response like this.”

The House and Senate on Monday passed calendar changes that pushed a Wednesday deadline for appropriations and revenue bills to pass with amendments to Friday, which Abbott said would still allow the House to get its work done.

How Regier’s nonrecognition of Zephyr affects the session in its final week-and-a-half remains to be seen. Lawmakers are expected to meet this Saturday after Monday’s calendar change, which would put the final Day 90 of the session on next Friday, May 5.

Regier said during a Senate Finance and Claims hearing Tuesday morning for his coal trust fund housing expansion bill, House Bill 927, which Abbott has testified in favor of in committee and on the House floor, that he was unsure of the bill’s prospects after Monday’s protests.

“Moving forward, and I’ll just be candid with all of you, I don’t know with recent events that have happened over in the House, I don’t know the fate of this bill. I don’t know where exactly it belongs in the conversation,” he told the committee.

Democrats have tried to get numerous affordable housing bills through the legislature this session but since Republicans have a supermajority, have had to work with their counterparts to try to pass any such legislation.

When asked how Democrats will proceed with trying to push some of their priorities over the finish line in the final days of the session, Abbott told reporters Tuesday she believes both parties need to regroup and have some conversations together. Senate Minority Leader Pat Flowers, D-Belgrade, said the Senate was trying to move forward the work it has to do while recognizing “challenges” on the House side.

“It’s important to address someone who represents 10,000 people and is duly elected not being able to participate in the way they should be able to,” Abbott said. “It’s a balancing act and I think our caucus will do our best.”

Law enforcement officers in riot gear push people out of the gallery after they protest in support of allowing Rep. Zephyr to speak. (Keila Szpaller/The Daily Montanan)

Abbott told the press following a meeting in Regier’s office that Republican leadership is looking at different avenues for how to move forward in regard to potential disciplinary action. She said her caucus believes the actions from the Speaker are severe, disenfranchising Zephyr’s constituents, and that the focus should be on the legislation that is harming the transgender, non-binary and two-spirit community.

“I think this is the most extreme action that I’ve seen a speaker take against a member in the 20 years I’ve been in this building,” Abbott said.

Abbott said there’s a “ripple effect” from Monday, which she attributed to the vote on the Senate amendment to House Bill 359. The House voted Monday with Rep. Braxton Mitchell, R-Columbia Falls, to reject the amendment that the Senate carrier said “gutted” the bill that bans drag performances on public property in the state.

“I expected a different vote on that,” Abbott said.

Knudsen told the press waiting outside Regier’s office that he has been advising leadership on different avenues they could potentially take as the Constitution, the joint and House rules and Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure allow.

“There certainly hasn’t been any decisions made yet,” Knudsen said.

There are nine legislative days left, and Knudsen said the short timeline is also impacting deliberations, especially as the legislature scrambles to finish business and get bills on Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte’s desk.

When asked if he thought legislation or amendments would be introduced to address Monday’s events would be put forward, Knudsen said it was a possibility, but he hadn’t heard anything about that specifically.

Knudsen was one of three Republicans to vote with Democrats against Regier’s decision against recognizing Zephyr on the floor on Monday. He said his opinion has changed a little bit since the “shit show” on the floor.

Regier ultimately did not address the press following the conference, avoiding the gaggle in the anteroom as he left.

Zephyr, who briefly appeared in the anteroom to Regier’s office where the press was waiting, did not comment on if she had heard details regarding potential disciplinary action against her.

“When there’s floor, we’ll know what’s going to happen,” Zephyr said.

Knudsen said the House leadership response would likely come on Wednesday.

“I would probably plan on being here tomorrow, that’s my feeling right now,” he said.

The Montana House of Representatives is planning to reconvene at 1:00 p.m. on April 26, 2023. #mtleg #mtpol
— Montana House Republicans (@MTHouseGOP) April 25, 2023

Montana Constitution, Legislative rules in play as leadership considers next steps

The House adopted rules earlier this session that outline how a censure could work, which is what the right-wing Montana Freedom Caucus called for after Zephyr last week told Republicans they would have “blood on (their) hands” if they supported Senate Bill 99.

Regier has said several times that Zephyr has not abided by rules of decorum for the House on multiple occasions, and that under Rule 20-20, the Speaker has the power to decide “all questions of order and privilege and decisions of recognition,” as the rule states.

He told reporters last week that he would only accept a public apology from Zephyr in order to perhaps recognize her again this session. He specifically pointed to Zephyr’s comments telling Republicans they should be “ashamed” of themselves for their vote on SB99 as the reason she was breaking rules and would not be recognized.

Under House Rule 20-80, which Democrats originally thought should be the rule in question, there is a process that could be followed to be disallowed from speaking and possibly censured.

Under the rule, the Speaker, majority leader or minority leader can call a member to order to have them seated immediately. The member can appeal being called to order, and if two others back the appeal, the House would vote on whether to uphold it to decide whether the member should continue being allowed to speak.

The call to order could also go to the Rules Committee, which could also recommend the member be censured “or be subject to other action.”

“Censure consists of an official public reprimand of a member for inappropriate behavior,” the rule states. “The House shall act upon the recommendation of the Committee.”

House Rule 20-30 also discusses questions of order and privilege, which could also apply to the Zephyr situation. It says questions of order and privilege are “those affecting the collective rights, safety, dignity and integrity of the House” and then “those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of individual members.”

The Montana Constitution says that either chamber can expel or punish a member “for good cause shown” with a vote of two-thirds of the chamber.

And the joint rules of both chambers say that if there is a substantiated charge of discrimination or harassment by a lawmaker filed through a complaint, a Legislative Conduct Panel can recommend to the Ethics Committee punishment, which includes removing a member from committees up to expulsion from the chamber.

The Ethics Committee would have to hold a hearing on the original complaint and vote on what action against the lawmaker in question was appropriate. The lawmaker facing the complaint would have an opportunity to speak in defense of themselves.

Then the full House or Senate chamber would be able to censure a member with a majority vote, or discipline or expel a member with a two-thirds majority vote.

Seven people booked, released by 9 p.m. Monday

Keegan Medrano, the policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, as well as Lt. Troy Christensen of the Lewis and Clark County Sheriff’s Office, confirmed seven protesters were booked on criminal trespassing charges and released before 9 p.m. Monday.

Six of the seven protesters came from Missoula and one was from Great Falls, according to the Sheriff’s Office.

Monday, Hannah Pate, of Great Falls, shared the reason it was important to demonstrate at the Capitol on behalf of Zephyr. Pate offered remarks while in custody of a law enforcement officer outside the Capitol before being taken to jail.

“That building is the public’s, and what they’re doing to Representative Zephyr is unbelievable — but also very believable,” Pate said, citing other actions by the legislature this session.

Christensen said it took four or five hours to book and release the seven protestors, and the jail released the last demonstrator close to 9 p.m. He said none had to post bond.

“That’s just what we do on misdemeanor charges,” Christensen said.

Justice of the Peace Tom Bremer said the people who were arrested had to leave the premises and get fingerprinted and photographed, and they have 10 days to appear before the court.

The Daily Montanan’s Keila Szpaller contributed to this story.

Montana House Speaker bars transgender lawmaker from speaking on chamber floor

Rep. Zooey Zephyr, Montana’s first openly transgender state lawmaker, will not be able to speak on the House floor until she apologizes publicly for telling Republicans earlier this week they should be ashamed of their votes in favor of a bill that would ban gender-affirming care for children in Montana, the Republican House speaker said Thursday.

Speaker Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, declined to recognize Zephyr on Thursday when she punched the button at her desk that indicates to the floor chairperson a lawmaker would like to speak on a bill or to the chamber.

Zephyr had hoped to speak against Senate Bill 458 on its second reading in the chamber – a bill that aims to define “male” and “female” in state statute. It was newly amended this week in committee to include exact definitions that were contained in amendments to Senate Bill 99 requested by Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte that Zephyr spoke against earlier this week.

Regier’s declining to recognize the Missoula Democrat kicked off objections from the minority leader, a House Rules Committee hearing about whether they should adhere to Regier’s ruling that Zephyr should not be recognized, and another challenge to undo his ruling on the floor that was unsuccessful.

“It’s up to the speaker on who gets recognized and who doesn’t,” Regier told reporters after the floor session. “So, until that trust is restored, and I can assure the integrity of the House is a priority, then I think it’s going to be a pause.”

When asked specifically what Zephyr had done on Tuesday during the discussion on SB99 that he found to be out of line with House decorum rules, Regier said it was “personal” comments directed toward Republicans who would vote in favor of Gianforte’s proposed amendments.

“The ‘shame on you’ – turning around and saying, ‘Shame on you,’ for somebody’s vote, degrading somebody for how they’re going to vote, that’s way off the issue,” he said.

On Tuesday, Zephyr, who testified in committee in opposition to SB99 and sat through committee hearings on both SB99 and SB458 in the House Judiciary Committee, told Republicans they should be ashamed of themselves and that if they voted in favor of the amendments, she hoped they would “see the blood on your hands” next time they bow their heads for the invocation that kicks off each floor session.

Her comments drew objections from Senate Majority Leader Sue Vinton, R-Billings, and several other Republicans on the House floor. Later Tuesday afternoon, the right-wing Montana Freedom Caucus issued a news release misgendering her and calling for her to be censured.

Zephyr on Wednesday released a statement saying she was “unconcerned” with the calls for censure and that she was speaking on behalf of the trans community. She stood by those comments Thursday when she discussed with reporters being silenced on the floor.

“It’s clear they’re doing something undemocratic. They’re wielding power to silence a minority from speaking on bills that not only impact that minority group, but also all of the bills I was sent here to speak on,” Zephyr said. “When you stand to defend your community, you have to get the words right. And I felt like I got the words right in the moment to describe the real harm that bill does.”

SB458, from Kila Republican Sen. Carl Glimm, defines sex in Montana statute, which supporters say is necessary because of discussions around gender and gender identity becoming such a pertinent issue in society.

A Legislative Fiscal Division analysis requested by Democrats said the bill, if passed, could potentially risk up to $7.5 billion because of conflicts with federal law.

Zephyr had tried to talk about SB458 on the floor on Thursday, which she said, like SB99, also deeply affects the trans community she says she represents as a trans lawmaker.

“I think for the Speaker and the majority party to silence a trans representative moments after they just voted through a bill that erases trans, nonbinary, and intersex people from Montana code shows that they do not want to be made accountable for the cruelty of their actions,” Zephyr said.

House rules signed off on by lawmakers at the start of the session say the speaker “shall decide all questions of order and privilege and decisions of recognition” in section 20-20, which Republicans on the House Rules Committee, which met shortly after Zephyr was not recognized, said was correctly enforced by the speaker.

Democrats had said the rule that actually should have been used was rule 20-80, which says essentially if a member violates the rules, they should be called to order and seated, with a right to appeal. That rule also contains the process for censuring lawmaker. Republicans in the Rules Committee voted against that interpretation.

“There’s been Republicans and Democrats that I’ve talked to about violations of the House rules, and everybody has remedied that except for Rep. Zephyr,” Regier said, adding that Zephyr had committed “multiple” violations this session. “I’m the Speaker of the House and what happens on the floor is my concern. We’ve got the House rules to address that, and that’s exactly what I’m doing.”

After the Rules Committee met, Zephyr again punched in on the floor on another bill – Senate Bill 522, which aims to provide hotel rooms for victims of violence and human trafficking – and was again not recognized. The minority followed rule 20-20 to vote whether to allow Regier to continue not recognizing her, which passed in a 62-33 vote, with Republican Reps. David Bedey of Hamilton and Greg Frazer of Deer Lodge voting with Democrats.

Zephyr said that bill too was one she wanted to speak on as a representative of Missoula, which has used hotels during the pandemic. She said she wanted to discuss “the benefit that has for very difficult moments for people in our community and why this bill is a great bill.”

Regier said a “great first step” from Zephyr would be “a sincere public apology to the House” should she want to speak again. Regier also said he had told committee leaders that whether to recognize her in their hearings was subject to their discretion.

Zephyr said she would have an answer as to whether she will be allowed to speak in committees when House Judiciary meets next Monday morning. But she believes that Republicans are using decorum “as both a shield and a cudgel” – citing several instances of Republicans referring to abortion as “child sacrifice,” calling people “morons” and insulting low-income people and those with substance abuse disorders.

“They will use decorum to block themselves from repercussions and they will use the rules to inflict harm and erasure on members of the minority,” she said. “And particularly, they’re choosing this moment to erase me.”

Missoula County Democrats said the speaker’s actions “are silencing” the voices of both Zephyr and her 11,000 constituents in House District 100 and called for her to be allowed to speak and for the Freedom Caucus to apologize.

“Government is here to represent our interests, not to silence our voices. And Montana is a place that is big enough for us all,” said Chairman Andy Nelson.

During the Rules Committee debate, Rep. Sharon Stewart Peregoy, D-Crow Agency, said she believed the majority was discriminating against Zephyr and said the tactics to not recognize her involved a “slippery slope” toward fascism. She and the rest of the Montana American Indian Caucus issued a statement denouncing the majority’s actions and condemning the Freedom Caucus.

“We further believe the effort to silence Rep. Zephyr is consistent with an emerging pattern,” the caucus wrote. “This session, members of the Montana Freedom Caucus have aimed to create an environment that is hostile to all opposing views, using inflammatory rhetoric while weaponizing religion and law to create a Montana aligned with their ideology.”

The Freedom Caucus issued a release with statements from four members who said they applauded the Speaker’s decision.

“As usual the Democrats tried to make the Speaker’s ruling about discrimination and race. To inappropriately label and impugn the motive of the Speaker is also a lack of decorum,” said Rep. Jed Hinkle, R-Belgrade.

Zephyr said the repeated attacks on the LBGTQ+ community by some legislative Republicans, and some of the comments made through the session about the community on the House floor, led to her comments on Tuesday, saying they “describe accurately the harm that these bills bring to my community.”

“I have lost friends to suicide this year. I field calls from multiple families who have dealt with suicide attempts, with trans youth who have fled the state. People who have been attacked on the side of the road because of legislation like this,” Zephyr said. “I spoke with clarity and precision about the harm these bills do. And they say they want an apology, but what they really want is silence as they take away the rights of trans and queer Montanans.”

Montana Republican votes against his own 'confusing' bill on science education after facing backlash

A Senate committee, including the sponsor himself, voted Monday to table a bill that drew heavy opposition last week from teachers, students and others in the STEM community that would have limited science instruction to “scientific fact.”

The Senate Education and Cultural Resources Committee tabled Senate Bill 235, sponsored by Sen. Daniel Emrich, R-Great Falls, in a unanimous vote. The chairman of the committee told Emrich he could vote against tabling it, but after a pause, he agreed with the rest of the committee, though he had told members he was offering to amend the bill.

Sen. Andrea Olsen, D-Missoula, moved to kill the bill, saying she had gotten 100 responses from people opposing it after last Monday’s hearing.

At that hearing, some of Montana’s top science teachers and students implored lawmakers to do what they did this week and put the bill to bed for good. They said it would stop Montana educators from being able to teach common scientific theories, like gravity, atomic theory and the Big Bang Theory, among others.

Multiple students who testified said it would put them far behind their peers in other states while trying to pursue STEM – or science, technology, engineering and math – educations and careers, and a former Missoula science teacher called the measure “the most extreme anti-science legislation” he had ever seen.

During the brief discussion on the measure Monday before it was shelved, Emrich said the bill was the first he had requested drafted back in December, but that it was “confusing in its simplicity.” He maintained he believed that under it, “theories would largely be unaffected.”

“The language of the bill, I thought, was simple,” Emrich said. “But as I have learned, the simpler a bill is, the more fallout, likely, it has.”

He said he thought the bill would have laid out a “stair-stepped approach” to teaching younger children the basics – a good concept that lacked in execution, he said.

“I think that the goal of this bill was intended to be clear to try and slow down the firehose of information to the younger and younger children,” he said. “Because I think that we keep piling more and more on them, and they keep absorbing less and less as a result.”

First documented cases of highly contagious bird flu identified in 3 Montana grizzlies

Three juvenile grizzly bears in Montana were euthanized after they tested positive for highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) last fall in what the state says were the first documented cases of the virus in grizzly bears, according to a news release from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

The bears were euthanized because they were in “poor condition” — showing signs of partial blindness, disorientation and neurological issues, FWP said in the news release Tuesday.

The bears are thought to have eaten birds that had the highly contagious virus, FWP Wildlife Veterinarian Jennifer Ramsey said in a statement.

The bears were found near Augusta, Dupuyer and Kalispell, FWP said in the release. The department added that they were the first documented cases of HPAI identified in grizzly bears. The virus was found in brown bears in Alaska late last year, Alaska Public Media reported.

HPAI has also been found in a fox and skunk in Montana, according to FWP. In other states and countries, the virus has been detected in black bears, raccoons and coyotes. An FWP spokesperson said more birds had recently tested positive as well.

FWP said it urges people to avoid contact with sick or dead wildlife and to report any “unusual or unexplained” sicknesses or deaths of wild birds and animals to their local wildlife biologist or the wildlife lab in Bozeman (406-577-7880 or 406-577-7882).