AG Knudsen's response to Supreme Court order: Toss Cromwell case

Adhering to the Montana Supreme Court’s deadline, state Attorney General Austin Knudsen on Thursday officially asked the court to deny a petition against him by Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell related to Confidential Criminal Justice Information and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

In his Thursday letter, Knudsen claimed Cromwell was “requesting his supervisory control be terminated”.

Cromwell’s legal counsel are Raph Graybill and Rachel Parker of Graybill Law in Great Falls. Graybill told the Chronicle on Thursday night that Knudsen oversimplified Cromwell’s petition as merely requesting the AG’s supervisory control end. Graybill said the petition is instead a continuation of her original request for clarification on whether Confidential Criminal Justice Information can be disclosed to ICE for civil or administrative purposes without a court order.

“A Supreme Court order interpreting the statute makes supervisory control unnecessary,” Graybill explained.

Cromwell went to the court May 1 asking if she had to supply ICE with Confidential Criminal Justice information without a court order, pointing to Montana’s constitutional right to privacy. Three days later, Knudsen, citing supervisory control, ordered her to withdraw her case and cancel her legal counsel.

The court subsequently ordered Knudsen to respond to Cromwell’s petition.

The Thursday response from the attorney general’s office continues: “Knudsen invoked supervisory control on April 30 when Cromwell refused to rescind her unlawful policy refusing to recognize ICE as a “criminal justice agency” and share confidential criminal justice information with them.”

“When taking supervisory control over Cromwell’s office, Attorney General Knudsen directed her to share confidential criminal justice information with ICE for all lawful purposes, including civil administration immigration matters and produce all documents, records, and communications related to the matter. She refused and filed a petition. However, a county attorney cannot refuse to comply with an Attorney General’s order instituting supervisory authority.”

Graybill denied Knudsen’s non-adherence claim.

“The release says Cromwell defied the AG and refused to repeal her policy,” Graybill said. “As our brief and the attachments make clear, that is false. There is no policy. Cromwell sent the information the AG requested.”

Knudsen argues that Cromwell has no case.

“Cromwell’s request for the Supreme Court to take up the case, Cromwell v. Knudsen, should be denied because she is asking the court to rule on a political issue — not a legal question,” Knudsen said.

If the case has any merit, he added, it is filed in the wrong jurisdiction.

“Rather, if any justifiable claims exist, the case should be filed in district court,” the response reads. “Entertaining this petition would chart a path for any county attorney to run to this Court to resolve any interpretive or policy disagreement she had with the Attorney General. A decision on the merits would nullify the Legislature’s grant of comprehensive supervisory authority.

“Cromwell is an outlier. No other county has distorted the plain meaning of Montana’s Criminal Justice Information Act to create a de facto sanctuary jurisdiction that is uniquely hostile to ICE’s important operations. This manufactured conflict has thus created no confusion far beyond Gallatin County. And because the plain meaning of Montana law is clear and no one, but Cromwell has refused to read and interpret the law as written, other county attorneys are not under ‘threat of losing control over their elected offices.’”

Graybill summed up the issue with one sentence.

“Cromwell’s asking for the court to declare what the law requires,” he said.