Bd. of Regents of Higher Educ. of Mont. v. State
| Decision Date | 29 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | DA 21-0605 |
| Parties | BOARD OF REGENTS OF HIGHER EDUCATION of the State of Montana, Petitioner and Appellee, v. The STATE of Montana, BY AND THROUGH Austin KNUDSEN, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Montana, Respondent and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Kristin Hansen, Lieutenant General, David M.S. Dewhirst, Solicitor General, Kathleen L. Smithgall, Assistant Solicitor General, Helena, Montana
For Appellee: Martha Sheehy, Sheehy Law Firm, Billings, Montana, Ali Bovingdon, MUS Chief Legal Counsel, Helena, Montana, Kyle A. Gray, Brianne C. McClafferty, Emily J. Cross, Holland & Hart LLP, Billings, Montana
For Amici Curiae: Palmer A. Hoovestal, Hoovestal Law Firm, PLLC, Helena, Montana (for Western Montana Fish & Game Association, Inc.), Logan P. Olson, O'Toole Law Firm, Plentywood, Montana (for Daniels County), Quentin M. Rhoades, Rhoades & Erickson PLLC, Missoula, Montana (for Montana Shooting Sports Association), Alexandria C. Kincaid, Attorney at Law, Emmett, Idaho, Donald E.J. Kilmer, Jr., Attorney at Law, Caldwell, Idaho (for Second Amendment Foundation, Idaho Second Amendment Alliance, and Madison Society Foundation, Inc.), Greg Overstreet, Overstreet Law Group, Stevensville, Montana (for Rep. Seth Berglee and 81 Legislators), James H Goetz, Jeffrey J. Tierney, Goetz, Geddes & Gardner, P.C., Bozeman, Montana Raph Graybill, Graybill Law Firm, P.C., Great Falls, Montana (for Students, Faculty & University Employees)
¶1 The State of Montana appeals from the December 13, 2021, Judgment and Permanent Injunction issued by the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the Board of Regents of Higher Education possesses the exclusive authority to regulate firearms on college campuses.
¶2 We affirm.
¶3 Since at least 2012, the Board of Regents of Higher Education (Board) has limited the use of and access to firearms on Montana University System (MUS) property through Board Policy 1006. That policy provides that the only individuals who may carry firearms on MUS campuses are "those persons who are acting in the capacity of police or security department officers" and have passed the requisite training or "those persons who are employees of a contracted private security company" and registered to carry firearms under Montana law.
¶4 In 2021, the Legislature enacted HB 102, which generally revises gun laws with respect to the open and concealed carry of firearms. Section 3 of HB 102 consists of several legislative findings relating to the Board and MUS and justifies the necessity of HB 102. Section 4 allows concealed carry "anywhere in the state" except for specific locations set forth by the Legislature. The Legislature did not extend an exception to the campuses and locations of the MUS. In Section 8 of HB 102, the Legislature amended § 45-3-111, MCA, regarding open carry, and deleted the prior MUS exemption, which did "not limit the authority of [the Board] to regulate the carrying of weapons" on MUS campuses. These sections of HB 102 effectively eliminate Board Policy 1006 and extend both open and concealed carry of firearms to MUS campuses and locations.
¶5 In Section 5, HB 102 prohibits the Board "from enforcing or coercing compliance" with any rules diminishing or restricting the right to possess or access firearms, "notwithstanding any authority of the [Board] under Article X, section 9(2)(a), of the Montana constitution." Section 6 further prohibits the Board, with a few exceptions, from "regulat[ing], restrict[ing], or plac[ing] an undue burden on the possession, transportation, or storage of firearms on or within [MUS] property" by persons eligible to possess firearms under Montana or federal law and who meet minimum safety and training requirements. Section 7 creates a cause of action "against any governmental entity" for "[a]ny person that suffers deprivation of rights enumerated under" HB 102. Finally, the Legislature conditioned $1,000,000 in the MUS budget to implement the provisions of HB 102 upon the Board's waiver of its right to challenge HB 102 in court. The Governor signed HB 102 into law on February 18, 2021. All sections of HB 102, except Section 6, became effective upon its passage and approval. Section 6 became effective on June 1, 2021.
¶6 The Board filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief on May 27, 2021. The Board sought a declaration that HB 102 was unconstitutional as applied to the Board, the MUS, and the campuses of the MUS. The Board additionally sought injunctive relief precluding the application of HB 102's provisions to the Board, the MUS, and its campuses. The District Court issued a temporary restraining order that same day. After holding a show cause hearing, the District Court converted the temporary restraining order to a preliminary injunction on June 7, 2021.
¶7 The State filed a motion for summary judgment on September 15, 2021, arguing that the Board did not have exclusive authority to regulate firearms on campuses. The Board filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on October 18, 2021, responding that Montana's Constitution vested full authority in the Board to regulate MUS campuses.
The District Court held a hearing on the dueling motions on November 30, 2021, and issued its Order that same day.
¶8 The District Court concluded Sections 3 through 8 of HB 102 violated the Board's constitutional authority and thus were unconstitutional as applied to the Board. The District Court denied the State's motion for summary judgment, granted the Board's cross-motion for summary judgment, and permanently enjoined enforcement of Sections 3 through 8 of HB 102 against the Board and on MUS campuses. Judgment was entered on December 13, 2021. The State appeals.
¶9 We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same M. R. Civ. P. 56 criteria used by the district court. Albert v. City of Billings , 2012 MT 159, ¶ 15, 365 Mont. 454, 282 P.3d 704. Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates the absence of any genuine issues of material fact and stands entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Albert , ¶ 15. When there are cross-motions for summary judgment, a district court must evaluate each party's motion on its own merits. Kilby Butte Colony, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 2017 MT 246, ¶ 7, 389 Mont. 48, 403 P.3d 664. "On cross-motions for summary judgment, where the district court is not called to resolve factual disputes and only draw conclusions of law, we review the district court's conclusions of law to determine whether they are correct." Kilby Butte Colony , ¶ 7.
¶10 Statutes enjoy a presumption of constitutionality, and the party challenging a statute's constitutionality bears the burden of proving it unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Knudson , 2007 MT 324, ¶ 12, 340 Mont. 167, 174 P.3d 469. An as-applied challenge alleges that a particular application of a statute is unconstitutional and thus depends on the facts of a particular case. City of Missoula v. Mountain Water Co. , 2018 MT 139, ¶ 25, 391 Mont. 422, 419 P.3d 685.
¶11 The intent of the Framers controls our interpretation of a constitutional provision. Butte-Silver Bow Local Gov't v. State , 235 Mont. 398, 403, 768 P.2d 327, 330 (1989). We must discern the Framers’ intent from the plain meaning of the language used and may resort to extrinsic aids only if the express language is vague or ambiguous. Nelson v. City of Billings , 2018 MT 36, ¶ 14, 390 Mont. 290, 412 P.3d 1058. Even in the context of clear and unambiguous language, however, we determine constitutional intent not only from the plain language, but also by considering the circumstances under which the Constitution was drafted, the nature of the subject matter the Framers faced, and the objective they sought to achieve. Nelson , ¶ 14. We must also consider that Montana's Constitution is a prohibition upon legislative power, rather than a grant of power. Board of Regents v. Judge , 168 Mont. 433, 444, 543 P.2d 1323, 1330 (1975) (citations omitted).
¶12 Under the 1889 Montana Constitution, the Legislature possessed absolute authority over the Board, which was vested with "general control and supervision of the State University ... [with] powers and duties [as] prescribed by law." Mont. Const. of 1889, art. XI, § 11. The 1972 Constitution removed the language subjecting the Board's powers and duties to legislative control and instead vested the Board with the "full power, responsibility, and authority to supervise, coordinate, manage and control the [MUS] and ... supervise and coordinate other public educational institutions assigned by law." Mont. Const. art. X, § 9 (2)(a). By the plain language of Mont. Const. art. X, § 9, the Board retains full independence over the MUS. However, the Board remains subject to the legislative powers to appropriate and audit, legislatively determined terms of office, and the oversight of additional educational institutions as prescribed by law. See Mont. Const. art. X, § 9 (2)(b) (); Mont. Const. art. X, § 9 (2)(d) ().
Legislative oversight likewise remained the case for the constitutionally created Board of Public Education. Mont. Const. art. X, § 9 (3) ().
¶13 The 1972 Constitutional Convention's debate over Mont. Const....
To continue reading
Request your trial