Transgender adolescents, their parents, and two medical providers who work with transgender youth are challenging a 2023 Montana law that bans gender-affirming care for trans youth. The plaintiffs charge the law with violating their rights under the Montana Constitution, including the right to equal protection, the right to access medical care, and the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.

After a years-long effort by the state of Montana to deny transgender people the right to update their identity documents, two transgender women filed a class-action lawsuit against the state and several of its agencies and officials. 26 states and the District of Columbia issue new birth certificate and do not require sex reassignment surgery nor court order in order to change gender marker, while Montana is one of five states that prohibits any changes.

In April 2023, Montana’s state legislature passed SB 419, an Act Banning TikTok in Montana. This law imposes a sweeping ban on free expression—one that would prevent everyday Montanans from using TikTok to communicate with immense audiences, access information from around the world, and express themselves. This ban flouts the First Amendment and tramples Montanans’ constitutional right to freedom of speech—that’s why the ACLU, ACLU of Montana, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and a coalition of civil society organizations filed amicus briefs in the district court and the Ninth Circuit urging the courts to block the law from going into effect. Through these briefs, we continue to fight to ensure that no legislature can ban Americans from using an immensely popular platform for online speech based on vague invocations of “national security” or anti-China rhetoric.

This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine.