The Montana Supreme Court sided unanimously with Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell in her case against Attorney General Austin Knudsen on Friday, ruling that Knudsen exceeded his authority when he attempted to take control of Cromwell’s local responsibilities. The court did not decide the question underlying Knudsen’s attempted takeover of Cromwell’s office, which relates to how much county governments must cooperate with U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The conflict began in October 2025 when Gallatin County records personnel sought Cromwell’s legal advice about an ICE request for confidential criminal justice information. Law enforcement agencies generally exchange such information with one another, but members of the public, including the media, must go through an onerous process to obtain it. (The information sought in this instance, for example, remains publicly unavailable.) Cromwell’s office advised county records personnel that ICE was not entitled to the information without a court order.
In April, Knudsen exercised supervisory powers — “the power to order and direct county attorneys in all matters pertaining to the duties of their office,” according to Montana code — over the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office. Exercising that control of Cromwell’s office, Knudsen ordered Cromwell to fulfill ICE requests.
Cromwell issued the memorandum that Knudsen demanded, but noted to her staff that she could not “vouch for the accuracy of the legal analysis underlying the directive.”
RELATED
On the Record: Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell
When federal immigration officials asked the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office for confidential criminal justice information about a county resident last fall, the attorney’s office declined, setting up a conflict between local government and Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen. As a Supreme Court ruling on that conflict approaches, Montana Free Press speaks with Cromwell about her stance on immigration enforcement, the dispute with Knudsen, and what’s at stake.
She also filed a petition with the Montana Supreme Court arguing that ICE shouldn’t have automatic access to confidential criminal justice information for civil immigration purposes and that Knudsen had overstepped his authority by exercising supervisory powers over her office.
On Friday, the court ruled that Knudsen did not have legal authority to take supervisory control of Cromwell’s office. Justice James Shea wrote the unanimous opinion.
Shea wrote that a county attorney has responsibility to two entities: the state and the county. Montana’s attorney general, Shea ruled, can exercise supervisory control only over a county attorney’s state-related responsibilities, like “prosecuting criminal laws and on occasion instituting or defending a civil suit in the name of the state.”
In this situation, because Cromwell was acting in her capacity as a legal adviser to Gallatin County, Shea ruled that Knudsen can’t force her to change course.
“The AG does not have supervisory authority over a county attorney when the county attorney acts as legal advisor to the county and its subdivisions,” Shea wrote.
Knudsen’s Supreme Court filings also argued that the case was beyond judicial review, positing that the dispute was an internal executive-branch matter to which Cromwell was a subordinate party. Shea rejected that argument, ruling that Cromwell had independent responsibility as a county official and a right to dispute Knudsen’s interference with her duties. Shea’s opinion, and a concurring opinion by Chief Justice Cory Swanson, rejected that argument.
The state Supreme Court also made plans to hear additional arguments about two underlying questions: Does ICE qualify as a criminal justice agency under Montana law? And does a criminal justice designation alone entitle an entity to confidential information, regardless of whether the request was for civil or criminal purposes?
The court asked both Knudsen and Cromwell to file briefs by Dec. 7, 2026.
LATEST STORIES
Federal lawsuit alleges Blaine County election map shortchanges Native voters
Three Native American residents of Blaine County have filed a lawsuit against Blaine County and its officials, alleging that the county’s election map “is unconstitutionally malapportioned” and dilutes the power of the Native vote. The lawsuit is the latest of several in Montana to challenge a county commissioner voting system.
Lost in transmission: What Super El Niño means for GYE
Compared to Pacific Coast’s specific tide and rain predictions, Greater Yellowstone and Northern Rockies may see muted impact with ‘warmer, drier’ forecast
After win at the ballot box, The Montana Plan draws legal challenge
On the same day that voters approved a ballot initiative that disallows corporate spending in Montana elections, several groups — including the Montana Republican State Central Committee — filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the measure. Several people involved in organizing efforts for Initiative 194 said the lawsuit comes as no surprise.
