Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Bill would expand jury trials in constitutional challenges; ACLU and trial lawyers oppose

March 26, 2025 | 2025 Legislature MT, Montana


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Bill would expand jury trials in constitutional challenges; ACLU and trial lawyers oppose
House Bill 480 would explicitly allow juries to decide disputed facts in constitutional challenges, sponsor Representative Brandon Lear told the Judiciary Committee at a Feb. hearing. Proponents said the measure restores a citizen role in resolving factual disputes and would guard against perceived judicial activism.

The bill’s chief proponents framed the change as a return to foundational practice. “HB 480 explicitly grants parties to constitutional challenges the right to trial by jury to determine facts in dispute,” attorney Michael Russell told the committee. He said juries are a core check on government and can reduce perceptions of judicial bias in politically charged cases.

Opponents disagreed on multiple grounds. “HB 480 abrogates the individual rights contained in our Constitution,” Khadija Davis of the ACLU of Montana told the panel, arguing that constitutional questions generally require legal expertise and that adding jury trials risks delay and extra public expense. Al Smith, representing the Montana Trial Lawyers Association, said courts already have discretion to empanel juries in equitable, injunctive cases and that the bill is unnecessary.

Committee members pressed both sides about how the proposed change would work in practice. Senator Mansella and others said they found some proponents’ remarks dismissive of ordinary citizens’ competence; Davis responded that jurors typically lack expertise in constitutional interpretation. Sponsor Brandon Lear said the bill is intended to ensure disputed facts are resolved by a jury when appropriate and urged passage.

The hearing ran through opponent and proponent testimony but did not record a committee vote during this session. Committee members asked staff and proponents to provide clarifying information if the bill moves forward.

Why it matters: The bill would change how Montana courts handle fact disputes in cases challenging statutes and orders on constitutional grounds, potentially affecting how quickly claims are resolved and who decides contested factual questions.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Montana articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI