The Montana Supreme Court recently upheld a lower court's decision regarding the judicial substitution process in the case of J. Williams v. G. Gianforte, docket number DA 25-0825. This ruling affects how judges are assigned in cases where substitutions occur, particularly in the context of new legislation aimed at ensuring fair judicial practices.
The case arose when Jordan Williams filed a complaint against Governor Greg Gianforte and other state officials, claiming that the appointment of Marta Bertoglio as the Director of the Department of Commerce violated the Montana Constitution. The key issue in this appeal was not the merits of Williams' complaint but rather whether the District Court correctly handled the substitution of judges after all judges in the First Judicial District had declined jurisdiction.
Jordan Williams, the plaintiff, challenged the appointment of Marta Bertoglio, alleging it violated Article V, Section 9, of the Montana Constitution. The defendants included Governor Gianforte and other state officials who were involved in the appointment process. The case reached the Montana Supreme Court after the District Court denied the Governor's motion to return the case to Judge Kathy Seeley for reassignment according to Senate Bill 41 (SB 41).
The dispute centered on whether the District Court erred in applying the existing judicial substitution rule rather than the new procedures outlined in SB 41. The Governor's office argued that SB 41 required a random selection process for judges, while Williams contended that the existing rules should apply since the Supreme Court had not yet established a new process.
On June 23, 2026, Justice Katherine M. Bidegaray delivered the opinion of the court, affirming the District Court's decision. The court ruled that the District Court correctly refused to return the case to Judge Seeley because the Montana Supreme Court had not amended its existing substitution rule when Judge Seeley invited Judge Best to assume jurisdiction. The court stated, "Neither SB 41 nor the August 28, 2025 memorandum operated as an amendment to this Court’s existing rule."
The ruling emphasized that the existing substitution procedure, codified as § 3-1-804, MCA, remained in effect. The court clarified that the procedural rules governing judicial substitutions are under the authority of the Montana Supreme Court, and any changes to those rules must come from the court itself, not from legislative enactments.
This ruling has significant implications for the judicial system in Montana. It reinforces the authority of the Supreme Court over procedural matters in the courts and clarifies that legislative actions like SB 41 cannot unilaterally change established judicial processes without the court's approval. This decision may impact future cases involving judicial substitutions and the assignment of judges, ensuring that existing rules are followed unless formally amended by the court.
Moving forward, this ruling may affect how courts handle cases involving judicial substitutions, especially in light of SB 41's intent to promote fairness in judicial assignments. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the importance of maintaining established judicial processes and the need for any changes to be made through proper legal channels.
As for what’s next, it is unclear if the Governor's office will seek to appeal this ruling further. However, the court's decision does set a precedent for how judicial substitutions will be handled in Montana moving forward. There are no related cases pending that would directly challenge this ruling, but the implications of this decision may lead to further discussions about judicial procedures and legislative authority in the future.