District Court, D. Montana — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Western Watersheds Project v. Salazar
District Court, D. Montana · 2011-02-14 · cited 7×
This case involves environmental plaintiffs challenging federal agency decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act regarding management of Yellowstone bison that migrate out of the park due to winter conditions and limited forage, exposing them to culling by Montana authorities concerned about brucellosis transmission to cattle. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with the court reviewing the administrative record and prior related litigation from 1985 onward that addressed similar issues of bison migration, park carrying capacity, disease risks, and state police powers. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the agencies' preferred alternatives in environmental assessments did not constitute arbitrary or capricious action and did not require additional environmental impact statements, as the migration resulted from natural conditions rather than major federal actions like fencing or supplemental feeding. Core reasoning relied on the administrative record showing the disease's economic impacts, the state's authority over trespassing wildlife, and consistency with earlier court rulings on the same topics.
environmentfederal powerprocedure
Fossen v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana, Inc.
District Court, D. Montana · 2010-10-06 · cited 1×
This case involved a group of Montana farmers and their businesses who purchased group health insurance through an association arrangement insured by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana (BCBSMT). The plaintiffs alleged that BCBSMT violated a Montana statute prohibiting higher premiums based on an individual's health status. BCBSMT removed the case to federal court, arguing that the claims were completely preempted by ERISA because they related to an employee welfare benefit plan. The court granted summary judgment to BCBSMT, dismissing the complaint, on the grounds that ERISA's broad preemption clause and its civil enforcement provisions displaced the state-law claim, which mirrored an ERISA provision and could have been brought under ERISA § 502(a).
healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal powerlabor & employment
ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES v. Tidwell
District Court, D. Montana · 2009-06-03 · cited 2×
This case involves judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act of a U.S. Forest Service Decision Memo authorizing a sanitation harvest of diseased and beetle-infested Douglas-fir trees on about 180 acres in the Big Timber Canyon area of the Gallatin National Forest to control a bark beetle epidemic. The project included thinning to optimal density levels and affected a small fraction of old growth forest while avoiding wilderness or roadless areas, with analysis of impacts on species like the northern goshawk. The court conducted de novo review of the administrative record and cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that the agency had met all substantive and procedural requirements under applicable laws such as NEPA and NFMA. The court concluded the project was properly planned and granted summary judgment to the defendants.
environmentprocedure
Conway-Jepsen v. Small Business Administration
District Court, D. Montana · 2004-02-17
This case involved a former Assistant District Director for the Small Business Administration's Helena office who sued the agency for retaliation and constructive discharge under Title VII after she objected to her supervisor's alleged gender discrimination against male employees. Following a five-day bench trial, the court found that the plaintiff had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she faced systematic harassment and adverse actions leading to her resignation. The court based its verdict on trial testimony detailing the supervisor's conduct, the plaintiff's complaints, and resulting harm, while rejecting the agency's defenses. It ordered back pay with interest, front pay until reinstatement, retroactive service credit for benefits, a GS-13 position in a non-hostile environment, $50,000 in compensatory damages, and attorney fees.
labor & employmentcivil rights
United States v. Birdsbill
District Court, D. Montana · 2003-01-24 · cited 18×
In this federal criminal case, the defendant was on trial for charges involving the sexual abuse of children and sought to introduce expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Michael Scolatti regarding results from the Abel Assessment for Sexual Interest test, which purportedly showed the defendant had normal sexual interest patterns and no abnormal interest in boys. The court granted the government's motion in limine to exclude the testimony on the third day of the January 2003 retrial. The decision rested on multiple factors: the disclosure was untimely, as it came only days before trial following a December 2002 mistrial and violated the parties' stipulated schedule and the Victims' Rights Act's protections for child witnesses; the notice failed to meet Rule 16 requirements by not adequately describing the expert's opinions, bases, or qualifications; and the court questioned the scientific reliability of the AASI test under Daubert standards, citing limited validation studies, potential for falsification, and possible cultural interference with the visual reaction time component.
criminal lawprocedure
Madison v. Graham
District Court, D. Montana · 2001-01-04 · cited 4×
In Madison v. Graham, private landowners sued to permanently enjoin Montana officials from enforcing the Stream Access Law on the beds and banks of certain non-navigable streams, claiming the law violated their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights and was unconstitutionally vague. The State Defendants and intervenors moved to dismiss, contending that the claims were properly characterized as takings claims rather than due process violations and that prior Montana Supreme Court decisions had already upheld the law. The court reviewed the statute's origins in the 1972 Montana Constitution's public water ownership provision, the Public Trust Doctrine, and key rulings in Curran, Hildreth, and Galt that recognized a public recreational easement over private streambeds up to the high-water mark, while noting that the right to exclude is a property interest and that earlier litigants had not pursued federal review.
propertycivil rights