Montana
Kalarchik v. Montana
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.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Visit ACLU of Montana Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
All Cases
18 Montana Cases

Montana
Apr 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Marquez v. State of Montana
Amelia Marquez is transgender woman and life-long Montanan. John Doe is a transgender man who was born in Montana, but currently lives out of state. Both wish to correct the sex marker on their birth certificates to reflect who they are. However, a law enacted in 2021, Montana Senate Bill 280, sought to prohibit transgender individuals born in Montana from correcting the sex marker listed on their birth certificate without obtaining a court order indicating that their “sex . . . has been changed by surgical procedure.” The ACLU, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP have sued, claiming that SB 280 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Montana State Constitution.
Explore case
Montana
Apr 2025

LGBTQ Rights
Marquez v. State of Montana
Amelia Marquez is transgender woman and life-long Montanan. John Doe is a transgender man who was born in Montana, but currently lives out of state. Both wish to correct the sex marker on their birth certificates to reflect who they are. However, a law enacted in 2021, Montana Senate Bill 280, sought to prohibit transgender individuals born in Montana from correcting the sex marker listed on their birth certificate without obtaining a court order indicating that their “sex . . . has been changed by surgical procedure.” The ACLU, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP have sued, claiming that SB 280 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Montana State Constitution.

Montana
Apr 2025
Civil Liberties
LGBTQ Rights
Perkins et al. v. State (HB 121)
A newly enacted Montana law, HB 121, bars transgender and intersex people from using restrooms and other sex-separated facilities that correspond to their gender identity in public spaces. In doing so, HB 121 seeks to undermine transgender and intersex people’s personhood and ability to participate in public life. Together with the ACLU of Montana and Legal Voice, the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative filed this lawsuit on behalf of a group of transgender and intersex Montanans challenging HB 121 as violating numerous provisions of the Montana Constitution.
Explore case
Montana
Apr 2025

Civil Liberties
LGBTQ Rights
Perkins et al. v. State (HB 121)
A newly enacted Montana law, HB 121, bars transgender and intersex people from using restrooms and other sex-separated facilities that correspond to their gender identity in public spaces. In doing so, HB 121 seeks to undermine transgender and intersex people’s personhood and ability to participate in public life. Together with the ACLU of Montana and Legal Voice, the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative filed this lawsuit on behalf of a group of transgender and intersex Montanans challenging HB 121 as violating numerous provisions of the Montana Constitution.

Montana
Mar 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Cross v. State of Montana
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.
Explore case
Montana
Mar 2025

LGBTQ Rights
Cross v. State of Montana
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.

Montana Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Free Speech
+2 Issues
City of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.
Explore case
Montana Supreme Court
Feb 2025

Free Speech
+2 Issues
City of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.