Supreme Court showdown?: Cromwell lawyers up in battle with AG Knudsen

Retaining counsel, Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell filed legal action on Friday seeking clarification from Montana’s highest court on her immigration and Customs Enforcement records dispute with Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen.

“We would not be here if the Attorney General had simply picked up the phone or done his job and issued a formal legal opinion.” Cromwell said in a Friday release. “Instead, we are dealing with public statements and theatrical directives issued without the clear legal foundation Montanans deserve.”

Cromwell’s petition for declaratory relief asks the state Supreme Court to determine whether Confidential Criminal Justice Information can be disclosed to ICE for civil or administrative purposes without a court order. For Cromwell, Montana’s constitutional right to privacy is the crux of her dispute.

“The Attorney General’s political theatrics have blown a simple, case-specific email exchange between a legal assistant and a county administrative office into a statewide crisis,” reads Cromwell’s argument in the filing.

The filing, from attorneys Raph Graybill and Rachel Parker of Graybill Law Firm in Great Falls, further states that "Cromwell and her colleagues across the state are being forced to weigh their oath to the Montana Constitution and its individual privacy provisions, as well as their duties to protect their clients from needless liability, against the threat of an extraordinary and novel exercise of executive power — all without the benefit and protection of Montana legal authority.”

The request is considered a form of legal action for clarification on the rights or responsibilities of parties before a dispute escalates.

“Montana’s Constitution provides some of the strongest privacy protections in the country, and I swore an oath to uphold it,” Cromwell added in her release. “I am not interested in speculation or directives delivered through the media. I am interested in the law.”

Graybill and Parker are Cromwell’s legal counsel. Her latest public communication in the inter-agency clash marks the sixth rebuke in the nearly month-long argument between the elected officials over an email six months prior.

Knudsen says Cromwell’s office did inform immigration officials it does not legally recognize ICE as a law-enforcement agency entitled to confidential criminal justice information. That was in an October 2025 email from Cromwell’s assistant, Jack Veil.

“I am writing to inform you that the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office does not legally recognize Immigration and Customs Enforcement as a law enforcement agency entitled to receive CCJI,” Veil wrote at the time.

“The Attorney General demanded that Cromwell rescind the ‘policy’ and accused her of ‘stealthily’ adopting sanctuary city policies,” reads the Supreme Court filing. “(Knudsen) contemporaneously shared his letter with media outlets; Cromwell first learned of the letter through outreach from media organizations.”

After waiting to make his complaint with Cromwell public, Knudsen issued a month of warnings to Cromwell in April culminating in an ultimatum on Thursday: That Cromwell complies and reverses a policy regarding ICE or lose control.

Knudsen then gave Cromwell 30 days to provide satisfactory records to his office, including sharing confidential criminal justice information with ICE for all lawful purposes, civil administration immigration matters, relevant documents, records, and communication, according to a press release headlined “Attorney General Knudsen invokes supervisory control over Gallatin County Attorney’s Office”.

Cromwell’s court filing notes she is directing future questions from the Gallatin County Records Department regarding ICE CCJI requests to Knudsen’s office, and that he ordered a weekly report on CCJI requests from her office indefinitely.

Cromwell has reiterated she has no policy to rescind, standing firm on her April 6 counter-demand that Knudsen “fulfill his statutory duty” by issuing a formal legal opinion on their rift. Knudsen made no mention of Cromwell’s request to issue a binding legal opinion on the dispute after publicly denying Cromwell in his April 23 reply.

The filing states such an opinion from Knudsen could have served as a “safe harbor” for Cromwell and help resolve “the inherent tension between the Attorney General’s informal interpretation and Montana law” for disseminating CCJI.

Part of Cromwell’s case could hinge on whether Montana county attorneys are employees of the county and/or the state.

When an attorney general’s opinion conflicts with a county attorney’s, the attorney general’s opinion is deemed controlling unless it is reversed or modified by a judicial decision, according to the state.

Former Attorney General Robert L. Woodahl concluded that a county attorney is jointly employed by the county and the state for Social Security purposes, according to Montana court records. Woodahl’s 1975 opinion held that a county attorney is not technically an employee of either the state or the county.

Other proceeding attorney generals issued different opinions largely pertaining to insurance disputes.

On Friday, Cromwell emphasized that her office is now seeking clarity directly from the Montana Supreme Court. A ruling could determine how Cromwell’s issue and others like it are handled in Montana moving forward.

Cromwell’s case itself infers she is in unchartered waters even though Knudsen already oversees county prosecutors and can assist with their cases. The attorney general can exercise supervisory powers over county attorneys in their official duties, including requiring reports on public business, per the Montana Legislature and the state Department of Justice.