The Montana Supreme Court ruled on November 6, 2026, that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cannot access confidential criminal justice information (CCJI) from Montana counties without a court order. This decision affects how local law enforcement agencies handle requests from federal immigration authorities and clarifies the legal boundaries of information sharing.

The court's ruling came in the case of Audrey S. Cromwell, the Gallatin County Attorney, versus Austin Miles Knudsen, the Montana Attorney General, under docket number OP 26-0292. The case arose after Cromwell sought a declaratory judgment regarding the legality of disseminating CCJI to ICE, particularly when ICE requested such information for civil purposes.

Background

The dispute began in October 2025 when Cromwell responded to a request from the Gallatin County Records Office about how to handle ICE's inquiry for non-public CCJI. Cromwell asserted that ICE could not access this information without a court order, as Montana law restricts such access. Six months later, in April 2026, Attorney General Knudsen disagreed with Cromwell's interpretation, claiming that ICE is a criminal justice agency entitled to access CCJI.

Following this disagreement, Knudsen ordered Cromwell to comply with his interpretation of the law, which led to further conflict. Cromwell maintained her stance and formally requested a legal opinion from Knudsen's office, which he refused to provide. This prompted Cromwell to file a petition with the Montana Supreme Court, seeking clarification on the matter.

The Ruling

The Montana Supreme Court, led by Justice James Jeremiah Shea, ruled in favor of Cromwell, stating that the Gallatin County Attorney has the standing to seek a declaratory judgment on the issue. The court determined that the Attorney General exceeded his authority by attempting to direct Cromwell's legal advice regarding CCJI dissemination to ICE.

The court ruled, "The AG does not have supervisory authority over a county attorney when the county attorney acts as legal advisor to the county and its subdivisions. The AG exceeded his authority in this instance by attempting to direct the GCA’s legal advice to county offices and employees."

This ruling confirms that counties in Montana cannot share CCJI with ICE without a court order, emphasizing the importance of protecting confidential information. The court ordered further briefing on whether ICE qualifies as a criminal justice agency under Montana law and whether it is entitled to access CCJI solely by virtue of that status.

Impact

This decision has significant implications for how local law enforcement agencies interact with federal immigration authorities. It reinforces the autonomy of county attorneys in Montana and establishes clearer boundaries regarding the sharing of sensitive criminal justice information. The ruling may also influence similar cases across the country as jurisdictions grapple with the balance between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement.

The court's ruling serves as a reminder of the legal protections surrounding confidential criminal justice information and the necessity of court oversight when it comes to sharing such information with federal agencies. It may also encourage other county attorneys to seek judicial clarification on similar issues in the future.

What's Next

The parties involved in the case are required to submit further briefs by December 7, 2026, addressing whether ICE is a criminal justice agency and if that status grants it access to CCJI. This ongoing legal discourse will likely shape future interactions between local and federal authorities regarding the handling of sensitive information.