The Montana Supreme Court has sided with a lower court in continuing to block enforcement of a 2023 Montana law defining sex as strictly male or female for purposes of state records.
In a 5–2 decision released April 14, the court upheld a preliminary injunction against Senate Bill 458, allowing the lawsuit challenging the law to continue in district court.
The opinion, written by Justice Laurie McKinnon, concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it temporarily halted enforcement of the law. The lawsuit was brought by two transgender plaintiffs who argued the state’s policies prevented them from obtaining identification documents matching their gender identity.
The court said the plaintiffs likely demonstrated a violation of Montana’s constitutional protections under the state’s Individual Dignity clause, which includes equal protection and nondiscrimination provisions.
In its analysis, the majority concluded that preventing transgender Montanans from updating identification documents may constitute discrimination based on sex. The court wrote that “transgender discrimination is, by its very nature, sex discrimination” under Montana’s constitutional framework.
The majority also emphasized that Montana’s constitution provides broader protections for individual rights than the federal constitution in certain circumstances.
Justice Katherine Bidegaray Baker wrote a special concurrence focusing on the Montana Constitution’s declaration that “the dignity of the human being is inviolable.” She wrote that forcing individuals to carry identification documents that do not match their lived identity could undermine that constitutional protection of human dignity.
Justice Jim Rice authored two dissents, joined by Chief Justice Cory Swanson.
Rice argued the state’s policies simply require biological accuracy in vital records and apply equally to all individuals. He wrote that the practical effect of the court’s ruling could be to require the state to issue identification documents that do not reflect factual information. the dissenting Justices also also argued that equal protection principles do not apply because the state’s policy treats all applicants the same.
The ruling does not permanently invalidate the law. Instead, it allows the lower court injunction to remain in place while the case proceeds toward a final decision on the law’s constitutionality.
