The MT Lowdown is a weekly digest that showcases a more personal side of Montana Free Press’ high-quality reporting while keeping you up to speed on the biggest news impacting Montanans. Want to see the MT Lowdown in your inbox every Friday? Sign up here.
A Helena-based lawsuit over whether transgender people can obtain identification documents that match their gender identity is still ongoing — but the dispute sparked a significant equal rights conclusion from the Montana Supreme Court this week that may reverberate across state law.
The case, Kalarchik v. Montana, had already temporarily frozen recent state legislation and driver’s license policies. But in order to reach that conclusion, state District Court Judge Mike Menahan had to evaluate whether state policy, at first glance, appeared to violate Montana’s equal protection rights by discriminating against transgender people on the basis of sex. In December 2024, the judge concluded exactly that.
“Plaintiffs have raised a valid prima facie case [that] the challenged state actions violate their fundamental right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex under the
Montana Constitution,” Menahan wrote at the time.
Put another way, the state’s restrictions on who can amend birth certificates and driver’s licenses appear to discriminate against transgender people by violating laws that protect people from sex discrimination. That finding justified putting all current protocols on hold while the legal merits get thoroughly hashed out in court.
Whether transgender discrimination amounts to sex discrimination has been a legal chess match that played out across all manner of state and federal courts in recent years. But Montana courts — which are measuring the issue against a state Constitution that often touts stronger protections for individual rights than its federal counterpart — have not yet weighed in.
In that landscape, Menahan’s original decision was a plunk that created ripples for legal experts and policymakers closely watching the Kalarchik case, one of several lawsuits stemming from Montana’s recent laws redefining “sex” and the Gianforte administration’s policies on birth certificates.
On Tuesday, the Montana Supreme Court weighed in on the case for the first time. Compared to Menahan’s ruling, the court’s 5-2 ruling was less of a ripple-inducing pebble drop and more of a legal cannonball.
Writing for the majority, Justice Laurie McKinnon outlined that Montana’s constitutional protections for individual dignity far exceed the federal equal protection standard in the Fourteenth Amendment. In that context, McKinnon concluded, the state’s restrictive posture appears unconstitutional.
“Government-issued identification documents are necessary to access public life. When they do not accurately reflect a person’s sexual identity, the transgender Montanan is prevented, based on their sex, from obtaining the same attributes of public life that a cisgender Montanan may obtain,” the majority opinion reads. “… Transgender discrimination is, by its very nature, sex discrimination.”
The decision was met with vehement opposition from two of the court’s members. Justice Jim Rice and Chief Justice Cory Swanson each penned lengthy dissents, arguing, in part, that the majority opinion misappropriated definitions about sex and gender to reach its equal protection conclusion.
Swanson criticized the majority ruling of the court he leads as an example of judicial “activism” that trampled on the Legislature’s policy-making territory.
Courts, he wrote, should “avoid establishing new or novel constitutional holdings based upon spurious reasoning and supported by a bare majority of the Court. Such Court opinions will not endure, nor should they.”
The court’s decision to uphold the temporary injunction isn’t the end of the road for the lawsuit. The case will continue to trial in Menahan’s court, where both sides will hash out the details of their arguments over whether trans people’s constitutional rights have, in fact, been violated. Swanson forecasted that Menahan’s decision will eventually find its way back to the Montana Supreme Court for a final evaluation.
“The Court will have to take a future opportunity, hopefully on a more complete district court record and with parties who have standing on all of their claims, to clean up this mess and discern the right constitutional holding,” Swanson wrote. “Between that day and this, we must suffer the consequences of today’s judicial misadventure.”
— Mara Silvers
Following the Money 💵
Staring down massive research budget cuts, one of Montana State University’s top research faculty members sought to reassure students earlier this week.
The cuts were proposed by the Trump Administration in its fiscal year 2027 budget, and billions of dollars that typically help fund university research nationwide are on the chopping block.
Alison Harmon, vice president for research and economic development at the state’s largest university, called the suggested cuts “concerning” in a Monday email to students, but cautioned that this is the first step in a lengthy process and that all the cuts may not come to pass.
“The request included proposed cuts to many programs important to university research and student initiatives,” Harmon wrote. “We are in communication with our Congressional delegation about these important programs and will remain in contact as the appropriations process moves forward for FY27.”
As a land-grant university, MSU relies heavily on federal funding, with roughly 92% of the university’s research expenditures during the 2024-2025 fiscal year being funded by federal agencies, according to an article from MSU’s in-house news service. During that same time, MSU’s research expenditures totaled $289 million.
University spokesperson Michael Becker was unable to offer a specific dollar amount the university stands to lose under the administration’s proposal. But, in an emailed statement to MTFP, Becker did point out that many of the cuts are to major programs “that have supported MSU’s research for years, including a $5.8 billion cut to [the National Institutes of Health], a $4.8 billion cut to the [National Science Foundation], $4.9 billion from USDA and a $5.6 billion cut from NASA, among others.”
The cuts are not at the president’s sole discretion; instead, Trump’s proposal is a starting point. Last fiscal year, the president also proposed massive cuts that would have hit university research, but many of those did not make the final budget.
— Victoria Eavis
Glad You Asked 🙋🏻
Last week, MTFP wrote about how Montana became one of nearly two dozen states aiming to limit which foods low-income families can purchase with SNAP, the food assistance program funded by the federal government. Like other states, Montana is proposing that SNAP benefits be used for “healthy, nutritious food instead of soft drinks, junk food and candy.”
Since then, we’ve heard from several readers asking why SNAP doesn’t follow the same model as WIC, the federal nutrition program for Women, Infants and Children.
Unlike SNAP, the WIC program is prescriptive about what people can and can’t buy with the vouchers, promoting foods with nutritional value.
Christopher Bosso, professor of public policy and political science at Northeastern University, told MTFP that SNAP is an anti-hunger program, while WIC is a nutritional program.
“[WIC] was designed specifically to enhance nutritional health of lactating women and infants up to age 5,” he said. “It’s very targeted. That’s why it’s so prescriptive. Where SNAP is always: Let’s just make it easier for low-income households to buy more food.”
“Nutrition is shaping health outcomes,” he continued. “SNAP is designed to deal with food insecurity, making sure people get food, period. If you want to make SNAP into a true nutrition program, then you’re going to make it into a different program.”
Because of the administrative burdens that come with restricting purchases of certain foods, far fewer retailers accept WIC than accept SNAP, according to Kiera Condon, an advocacy specialist with the Montana Food Bank Network.
— Nora Mabie
Hot Potato 🥔
The Montana Republican Party earlier this week officially came out against the constitutional initiative that would maintain the nonpartisan status of judicial elections in the state.
The state party and other detractors of CI-132 say that judicial races are already partisan in spirit, and that forcing candidates to run on a party ticket would just add transparency for voters.
“So-called ‘nonpartisan’ judicial elections do not remove politics from the judicial process,” a press release from the state party read. “Rather, they serve only to obscure politics, leaving ordinary voters in the dark under the false pretense of neutrality and nonpartisanship.”
The news doesn’t come as a huge surprise to political onlookers. One of the main goals of a hardline faction of Republican legislators during the 2025 session was to pass legislation that would switch judicial races in the state from nonpartisan to partisan. That bloc of Republicans unsuccessfully proposed multiple bills on the topic, including a quietly orchestrated Hail Mary attempt to change the law in the final minutes of the months-long session. Those bills were consistently blocked by a more centrist group of Republicans and Democrats at the Legislature.
If CI-132 passes, the nonpartisan status will be enshrined in the state Constitution.
CI-132 is being forwarded by Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts, which has consistently argued that voters should continue selecting judicial candidates based on their qualifications, not their political affiliation.
Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts spokesperson Caitie Butler said that CI-132 “ensures the people of Montana get to pick judges who will adhere to the constitution rather than the party line.”
To qualify for the 2026 general election ballot in November, Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts must gather roughly 60,000 signatures from across the state by mid-June.
— Victoria Eavis
This just in 📨
The U.S. Army earlier this week named a new fleet of advanced aircraft the “Cheyenne II,” after the Northern Cheyenne Tribe in Montana and the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes in Oklahoma.
The MV-75 Cheyenne II can travel faster than 300 mph, transport 14 soldiers and carry up to 10,000 pounds, according to the Army.
“An army team selected the name for the new MV-75 aircraft after researching more than 500 Native American tribes,” text on a U.S. Army social media video reads. “The team found that the MV-75’s speed, range and adaptability mirrored the historical attributes of the Cheyenne tribes.”
Enacted in 1969, Army Regulation 70-28 required Army aircraft to be named after “Indian terms and names of American Indian tribes and chiefs.” While that regulation is no longer in effect, the Army wrote in a news release that naming the Cheyenne II continues the tradition.
Northern Cheyenne Tribal President Gene Small applauded the announcement, writing on Facebook, “This collaboration represents more than a project or an agreement — it reflects a recognition of our enduring strength, our history, and the contributions of our people.”
But the announcement received mixed reviews from Northern Cheyenne community members online. While some agreed with Small, others said they wished the tribe’s membership had been included in the decision. Some said they felt embarrassed and disagreed with the tribe’s name being used for military purposes.
— Nora Mabie
Snapshot 📸
I made this image while sitting shotgun with a graduating senior from Rapelje as he showed me his family’s farm last week, a few months before he’s planning to leave it for different, but definitely not greener, pastures (because literally the wheat fields are very green right now).
— Lauren Miller
Highlights ☀️
In other news this week —
• Our contributing reporter Victoria Eavis wrote about how the shifting interest of Democratic donors is deepening the divide between Montana Republicans.
• There’s also a Republican battle brewing in the race for Montana’s Western Congressional District. Politics reporter Tom Lutey this week gave voters their required reading on candidates Aaron Flint, Christi Jacobsen and Al Olszewski.
• And if that wasn’t enough political coverage this week, State Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy withdrew from the Democratic primary for Montana’s Eastern Congressional District amid allegations of sexual abuse.
On Our Radar
Nick — I’ve long enjoyed the verbal shenanigans of former Montana Tech football coach Bob Green, whose full-throated “Greenisms” are legendary. Take, for example, this gem: “I don’t like bottled water. I like Butte water. You get to eat and drink at the same time.” Or this, in reference to an upcoming opponent: “They’re going to be very good. They’re rougher than a pine-cone toilet seat.” You get the idea. Now, for a mere $25 (a pittance, really), Green, through the website Cameo, will send a person of your choosing a videotaped, personalized pep talk, birthday best wishes or whatever. Recently, Green hollered this sage encouragement through such a message: “You’ve got all kinds of opportunities. You’re like a mosquito at a nudist colony.”
Lauren — My new obsession is texture-hunting. Who needs to risk their lives with awakening bears while searching for sheds, when instead you could just imprint the world around you? I’m really excited to bring this new skill into my photography and hopefully use it in a project in the future. But for now, we’re just playing around. More daylight means more hours and energy to be creative.
JoVonne — It’s always exciting to see Native folks in places we don’t often see them in. Blackfeet and Cherokee chef and founder of Indigitkitchen, Mariah Gladstone, will be featured next week in an episode of Food Network’s competition show “Chopped.” Gladstone specializes in dishes made with traditional Indigenous ingredients and will have a chance to showcase her skills during the episode, which is themed “Indigenous Inspirations.” Catch Gladstone Tuesday, April 21, 10 p.m. mountain time, on the Food Network!
Zeke — NASA isn’t just sending people to the moon. I stumbled onto their website while researching a story and found stunning satellite photos of wheat fields in Montana’s Golden Triangle.
Mara — Lately, I’ve been having a spirited (buffeted, perhaps?) debate with friends and family about how the wind makes them feel. To my surprise, I’m learning that almost everyone seems to hate what is arguably my favorite element. Who doesn’t love being gusted about while running on a ridgeline? Or biking faster just to feel the wind on your face? Almost everyone around me, apparently. So, I’m expanding my sample size: Lowdown readers, who’s with me?
*Some stories may require a subscription. Subscribe!
Lowdown is edited by Nick Ehli, with additional copy editing by Mara Silvers.