Upcoming public hearings

Lewis and Clark County · Montana Supreme Court

Oral Argument · the Courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, in Helena

STEVE BLANCHARD, an individual, and ROXANNE BLANCHARD, an individual, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WILD HORSE TRADING CO. L.L.C., a Montana limited liability company with its principal place of business in Sanders County Montana; WILD HORSE CONTRACTING SERVICES, an assumed business name for a Montana limited liability company with its principal place of business in Sanders County Montana; JASON SUBATCH, an individual residing in Sanders County, Montana; PACIFIC WESTERN LUMBER, INC., a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Pierce County, Washington; NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation with its registered agent in Missoula, Montana; SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation with a registered agent in Helena, Montana; and JOHN DOES 15, individuals whose names are currently unknown, Defendants and Appellees

DA 25-0409 · Oral Argument

STEVE BLANCHARD, an individual, and ROXANNE BLANCHARD, an individual, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WILD HORSE TRADING CO. L.L.C., a Montana limited liability company with its principal place of business in Sanders County Montana; WILD HORSE CONTRACTING SERVICES, an assumed business name for a Montana limited liability company with its principal place of business in Sanders County Montana; JASON SUBATCH, an individual residing in Sanders County, Montana; PACIFIC WESTERN LUMBER, INC., a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Pierce County, Washington; NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation with its registered agent in Missoula, Montana; SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation with a registered agent in Helena, Montana; and JOHN DOES 15, individuals whose names are currently unknown, Defendants and Appellees. Oral Argument is set for Wednesday, March 25, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, in Helena.

Lewis and Clark County · Montana Supreme Court

Oral Argument · the Dennison Theatre, on the campus of the University of Montana, Missoula, Montana

MAE NAN ELLINGSON, JEROME LOENDORF, ARLYNE REICHERT, HAL HARPER, BOB BROWN, EVAN BARRETT, C.B. PEARSON, CAROLE MACKIN, MARK MACKIN, and JONATHAN MOTL, Plaintiffs, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants, v. STATE OF MONTANA, GREG GIANFORTE, Governor of the State of Montana, AUSTIN KNUDSEN, Montana Attorney General, CHRISTI JACOBSEN, Secretary of State, Defendants, Appellants, and Cross-Appellees

DA 25-0142 · Oral Argument

MAE NAN ELLINGSON, JEROME LOENDORF, ARLYNE REICHERT, HAL HARPER, BOB BROWN, EVAN BARRETT, C.B. PEARSON, CAROLE MACKIN, MARK MACKIN, and JONATHAN MOTL, Plaintiffs, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants, v. STATE OF MONTANA, GREG GIANFORTE, Governor of the State of Montana, AUSTIN KNUDSEN, Montana Attorney General, CHRISTI JACOBSEN, Secretary of State, Defendants, Appellants, and Cross-Appellees. Oral Argument is set for Friday, April 10, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in the Dennison Theatre, on the campus of the University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, with an introduction to the argument beginning at 9:30 a.m. Senate Bill 93, enacted in 2023, made several revisions to the laws governing citizens’ preparation and submission of statewide ballot issues. A group of Montana citizens (Plaintiffs) filed a legal challenge to eleven of SB 93’s revisions, arguing the changes infringe upon Montanans’ constitutional powers of initiative and referendum. The District Court agreed with Plaintiffs regarding four of the revisions they challenged but declined to award Plaintiffs their attorney fees. The Plaintiffs’ remaining claims were dismissed. On appeal, the State argues that when a court is asked to consider the constitutionality of a law regulating the citizen initiative and referendum process, it should determine whether the requirements facilitate or impede Montanans’ initiative and referendum power. The State contends that the District Court instead wrongly analyzed the constitutionality of the challenged provisions by considering whether the ballot issue requirements exist on “equal footing” with the process the Legislature requires for its own bills. On the merits, the State challenges the District Court’s rulings striking down the following provisions from SB 93: a $3,700 required filing fee for initiating the ballot issue process, which the Secretary of State may waive on a showing of hardship; a four-year bar on filing a ballot initiative that is substantially the same as a measure defeated by the voters; and a provision calling for a legislative committee to vote on a proposed initiative’s merits and place the results of the vote on the ballot petition. Plaintiffs have cross-appealed, arguing the District Court erred in denying their request for attorney fees.

Lewis and Clark County · Montana Supreme Court

Oral Argument · the Strand Union Building, Ballroom A, on the campus of Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JAY STEVEN HUBBER, Defendant and Appellant

DA 24-0386 · Oral Argument

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JAY STEVEN HUBBER, Defendant and Appellant. Oral Argument is set for Thursday, April 23, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. in the Strand Union Building, Ballroom A, on the campus of Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, with an introduction to the oral argument beginning at 10:00 a.m. Hubber, a bail bondsman, was charged with accountability for deliberate homicide and aggravated burglary after he and his associate Nicholas Jaeger entered the home of William “Bill” Harris in search of a man for whom Hubber had posted bail and, while inside Harris’s home, Jaeger shot and killed Harris. A jury convicted Hubber of both charges. On appeal to the Montana Supreme Court, Hubber argues the trial court did not provide the jury with the correct “mental state” jury instructions. However, his trial counsel did not object, so Hubber requests that this Court either conduct a plain error review or conclude his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Hubber also argues the District Court erred by denying his motions to dismiss the accountability for deliberate homicide charge because the State offered insufficient evidence to support the conviction. Finally, Hubber argues the District Court erred when it refused to recognize that he had a bondsman’s privilege under Montana law when he entered Harris’s residence, and the trial court should have allowed him to submit jury instructions on the subject. About Contact us Employment Americans with Disabilities Act Public Privacy & Security MT.GOV