Law firm files request to add new redefinition of sex law to older lawsuit

Upper Seven Law has submitted a request to add a recently signed bill redefining sex in state law to an older lawsuit with a very similar piece of legislation signed in 2023. 

Gov. Greg Gianforte signed Senate Bill 437 into law earlier this month, legislation that is very similar to a 2023 law that has been struck down by courts. The 2025 law, SB 437, sat on House Speaker Brandon Ler’s desk for nearly a year before signing.

Ler, a Republican, said in a statement this week that, saying laws “should be evaluated on its own merits, not folded into broader challenges.”

But the two laws are similar and SB 458, the previous iteration of the definition of sex legislation, was struck down in Missoula District Court.

“The Legislature did so despite being on notice of this Court’s prior ruling that writing trans, nonbinary, and intersex Montanans out of the law in this manner violates Montanans’ fundamental constitutional rights to privacy and dignity,” the request to file reads. “After the bill passed both chambers and the President of the Senate signed it, Plaintiffs informed Defendants of their intent to supplement their claims to challenge SB 437.”

Senate President Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, signed the bill on April 21, 2025 and it was transmitted to the Montana House shortly after. Montana District Court Judge Leslie Halligan issued an order in the case several months prior and awarded attorneys fees to the plaintiffs.

Following a fairly normal start to the attorneys fees process, with Upper Seven Law executive director Rylee Sommers-Flanagan describing it as “not super fast, not crazy slow,” the process slowed down.

And on Aug. 5, 2025, Attorney General Austin Knudsen and Gianforte filed a writ of supervisory control against Halligan at the Montana Supreme Court. The state Supreme Court has control over the other state courts and, as defined in state code, has the ability to, “on a case-by-case basis, supervise another court by way of a writ of supervisory control,” which the law goes on to say is an “extraordinary remedy.”

In the state filing, Knudsen raised concerns over separation of powers, and says the Missoula District Court has “run roughshod” over other branches of government.

“This court must step in and assert its supervisory authority for the sake of Montana’s judiciary,” the court filing says. “At a time when judicial activism, real or perceived, has inflamed civil discourse at both the state and national levels, the District Court’s actions in this case have only added fuel to that fire.”

The petition also takes issue with the “advisory opinion” of the district court. In her order, Halligan specifically mentions legislation from Sen. Carl Glimm, R-Kila, that eventually became SB 437, and goes on to write, “the threat of harm in the enforcement of SB 458, or bills of similar character, remains prevalent.”

The petition takes issue with Halligan’s actions, saying, “if there were any question that the District Court relied on this hypothetical future bill, the District Court’s later Order Staying Filing of Fees Affidavit confirms that the District Court is acting in consideration of the content of a nonexistent law that is not before the District Court.”

But the law was only “nonexistent” because it was sitting, unsigned, on Ler’s desk. If it had been signed by Ler, it would have gone to the Governor’s desk, where a bill can sit for 10 days before it becomes unsigned law.

“Unenacted legislation not yet before the court is certainly not justiciable,” the state told the Supreme Court.

It then asked the Supreme Court to tell the district court to vacate its summary judgment and dismiss the lawsuit.

In a two-page response, the Montana Supreme Court declined to take up the stay.

“Petitioners’ impatience with the litigation process is an insufficient basis to constitute urgency or emergency factors that make the normal appeal process inadequate,” the Supreme Court’s response says.

Court documents submitted by Upper Seven said they intend to file their supplemental complaint on or before April 7.

2026-03-25+-+Dkt.+83+-+Not+of+Intent+to+Seek+Leave+to+File+Supplemental+Complaint-combined (1)