Montana District Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the U.S. state of Montana. Montana District Courts have original jurisdiction over most civil cases (at law and in equity), civil actions involving monetary claims against the state, criminal felony cases, naturalization proceedings, probate cases, and most writs. They may also hear certain special actions and proceedings, and oversee a narrowly defined class of ballot issues. Montana District Courts also have limited appellate jurisdiction regarding cases that arise in Justice Courts, City Courts, and Municipal Courts (Courts of Limited Jurisdiction) as well as Judicial review of decisions by state administrative law tribunals that fall under the Montana Administrative Procedures Act.
District Court judges are elected in nonpartisan elections for six-year terms. Mechanisms exist for removing judges for misconduct, and for filling vacancies between elections. There are 56 District Courts organized into 22 judicial districts, but only 51 District Court judges. Workload is a serious issue in the District Courts, which are assisted in their administrative tasks by a District Court Council.
History Montana became a state in 1889. A state constitution was drafted in 1884, which established a system of courts: A supreme court, district courts, county courts, justices of the peace, and municipal courts such as the legislature might see fit to create. Four judicial districts were created, each with a district court. National politics delayed Montana's statehood, however, in part because a significant number of other territories (Arizona Territory, Dakota Territory, Idaho Territory, New Mexico Territory, Utah Territory, Washington Territory, and Wyoming Territory) were all seeking statehood. Statehood for Montana was also stymied, specifically, because Montana voters of the day overwhelmingly favored the Republican Party. The Democratic-controlled United States House of Representatives routinely blocked Montana statehood to retain the status quo balance of power in Congress. The impasse was broken in 1888 when the Democratic Party amended its platform to favor the statehood of Republican-controlled territories, and the Republican Party amended its platform to favor the statehood of Democratic-controlled territories.
At the 1889 Montana state constitutional convention, delegates retained nearly all the language of the 1884 constitution. However, county courts were abolished and jurisdiction for probate given to district courts. The number of district courts was expanded to eight from four. The 1889 constitution also limited the creation of inferior courts (such as intermediate appellate courts, municipal courts, and small claims courts) only in state-incorporated cities or towns. The jurisdiction of district courts was specified somewhat in detail, and included both felonies and misdemeanors not otherwise assigned to another court. District courts acted as an intermediate court of appeals, and could not hear cases de novo. Impeachment powers were vested solely in the Montana Senate.
In 1972, Montana held a constitutional convention to update and revise its state constitution. Under the new constitution, District Courts now had jurisdiction only over criminal felonies, while criminal misdemeanors were handled by City Courts, Justice of the Peace Courts, and Municipal Courts. No longer was the legislature required to establish inferior courts only in incorporated cities or towns, and the District Courts were required to hear appeals de novo. The new constitution also authorized the legislature to establish a right to appeal the decisions of state agencies directly to district courts. Impeachment powers were changed as well. Now the Montana Senate and the Montana House of Representatives jointly vested with impeachment powers. The entire legislature could now specify the criteria for impeachment, establish whatever tribunal it wished, and provide for the procedures for impeachment.
Jurisdiction
District Courts in Montana have both original and appellate jurisdiction.Montana Code Annotated, Title 3, Chapter 5, Part 3, §302. Each District Court's process extends to all parts of the state,Montana Code Annotated, Title 3, Chapter 5, Part 3, §304. and the District Courts are courts of record.Montana Code Annotated, Title 3, Chapter 1, Part 1, §102.
Original jurisdiction Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution of Montana establishes the jurisdiction of Montana District Courts. District Courts have original jurisdiction in all criminal felony cases, all civil and probate matters, cases at law and in equity, civil actions involving monetary claims against the state, misdemeanors not falling under the jurisdiction of another court, and special actions or proceedings not otherwise provided for by law. District Courts have concurrent original jurisdiction with the justice of the peace courts over misdemeanors committed concurrently with a felony, misdemeanors arising from a reduction in the charge of felony, and misdemeanors found during trial in a District Court. District Courts also have the power to issue writs and naturalize citizens.
District Courts have the power to enforce the decisions of the Montana Water Court arising within their judicial district.Montana Code Annotated, Title 3, Chapter 7, Part 2, §212.
Appellate jurisdiction Except as otherwise provided for by law, District Courts act as appellate courts for inferior courts, and must hear cases de novo.Montana Code Annotated, Title 3, Chapter 5, Part 3, §303. Justices of the Peace Courts are not "courts of record", which is why District Courts must try "the matter anew, the same as if it had not been heard before and as if no decision had been previously rendered." Appeals from City CourtsMontana Code Annotated, Title 3, Chapter 11, Part 1, §110. and Municipal CourtsMontana Code Annotated, Title 3, Chapter 6, Part 1, §110. which are, by law, defined as "courts of record" are the two exceptions, and such appeals are limited to a review of the record and questions of law.
Case law on standing, jurisdiction, and appeals According to legal experts Larry M. Elison and Fritz Snyder, none of the pre-1972 Montana Supreme Court rulings regarding District Courts appear relevant today. Nearly all these cases dealt with very narrow interpretative issues, such as the equity jurisdiction of District Courts and the development of extraordinary writs. These cases reflect the narrow jurisdiction granted to District Courts under the 1889 constitution, which was significantly expanded in the 1972 state constitution.
Montana Supreme Court rulings on standing in District Courts is straightforward and traditional, relying on a widespread, national legal consensus. The most important cases are and
Several Montana Supreme Court cases since 1972 have clarified the jurisdiction of the District Courts. The state supreme court held in that District Court jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by consent of the parties. Youth Courts, created by the Montana Youth Court Act in 1974, are the equivalent of district courts, the Montana Supreme Court held in In , the high court held that, when a Youth Court has terminated, there is no bar to exercise of jurisdiction by the district court over felony proceedings against a minor. Further, the court held in , a District Court has jurisdiction over an adult being tried for crimes committed when the defendant was a minor. Jurisdictional conflict is common in Montana, as the state is home to several sovereign Indian reservations and non-resident landowners are common. The right of the Montana District Court to exercise original jurisdiction in a probate case involving a judgment by an out-of-state court was upheld by the Montana Supreme Court in This case is even more notable because the out-of-state court was a United States district court in New York. Two cases have concerned District Court jurisdiction over agreements made on tribal land. Where one party is a tribal member and the other party is a non-member, but both reside on a reservation, District Courts have no jurisdiction the Montana Supreme Court has held (). However, where an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Montana creates a contract which is to be performed both on tribal land and on state land, that attorney cannot evade the jurisdiction of the District Court by claiming tribal membership ().
The unique constitutional provision for direct appeal of the ruling of an executive branch agency to a District Court has also been clarified by the Montana Supreme Court. In , the state supreme court held that the failure of the state legislature to provide for direct appeal is no bar to such an appeal when the legislature has also provided for a general administrative appeal by statute. But only the legislature, not the executive branch, has the power to create such an appeal, the court said in
Selection
Judicial elections Article VII, Section 8 of the Constitution of Montana provides for the election, rather than appointment of District Court judges. The 1889 constitution limited District Court judges to four-year terms. The state legislature enacted a law in 1909 mandating these elections be nonpartisan, and providing for nomination by citizen petition. The Montana Supreme Court struck down this law in 1911 after finding that it provided for no means of nominating judges in newly created judicial districts.
In 1935, the state legislature enacted new legislation barring political parties from endorsing, making contributions to, or making expenditures on behalf of or against judicial candidates. In 1972, the new state constitution extended the terms of District Judges to six years. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in , Western Tradition Partnership, a group which promotes free market solutions to environmental problems, sued to overturn the 1935 law. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the law in But a year later, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ruling in , which opened the door to vastly increased PAC and political party spending on judicial races in Montana. In 2012, a Frontline documentary, Big Sky, Big Money, revealed that American Tradition Partnership (the new name of Western Tradition Partnership) had not registered as a political committee under Montana law. American Tradition Partnership spent little money in Montana in 2013, but began spending heavily again in judicial races in 2014. The American Tradition Partnership ruling led to record spending of $1.6 million in the 2014 Montana Supreme Court races. Spending surpassed that in the 2016 contests.
Qualifications for election and office-holding The 1889 constitution permitted anyone to run for the office of District Court judge, so long as they were a citizen, had reached the age of 25, were licensed to practice law in the state, and had resided in Montana for at least a year. While judges had to resident in their district, candidates could run in any judicial district in the state.Constitution of the State of Montana, Article VIII, §16 (1889). The 1972 state constitution changed this by requiring that candidates for District Court be licensed to practice law in the state of Montana for at least five years and have resided in the state of Montana for at least two years. It deleted the age requirement, and prohibited judges from holding office in a political party.
Vacancies