Daily Montanan

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ordered an appeals court to reconsider a North Dakota tribal redistricting case under new legal standards set in the high court’s recent Voting Rights Act ruling.

The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Spirit Lake Nation and three tribal citizens filed the lawsuit against the North Dakota Legislature in 2022, arguing that its new legislative map shifted district lines in a way that diluted tribal representation. The tribes filed the case under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which outlaws racially discriminatory voting practices.

North Dakota U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte in 2023 sided with the tribes and soon after ordered that a different map be put in place.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals last year came to a much different conclusion. It found that the tribes didn’t have the right to bring the lawsuit because compliance with Section 2 may only be enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice. The 8th Circuit is the only federal appeals court to make this finding.

The tribes in September officially asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the 8th Circuit’s decision and answer whether private citizens can bring Section 2 cases.

The Supreme Court on Monday decided 8-1 to void the appeals court’s ruling, ordering the 8th Circuit to review the lawsuit again in light of its April decision in a separate racial gerrymandering case, Louisiana v. Callais.

The court did not issue an opinion explaining the reasoning behind its decision in the North Dakota case.

North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley said the district map ordered by Welte will remain in place for this fall’s election.

Attorneys for the tribes applauded the court’s decision to vacate the 8th Circuit’s ruling.

“The Supreme Court was correct to vacate the Eighth Circuit’s decision, which wrongly prevented Native voters and Tribal Nations from vindicating their rights under the Voting Rights Act,” Lenny Powell, a staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, said in a statement.

Mark Gaber, senior director for redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center, said he believes the decision affirms private citizens’ ability to bring suits under Section 2.

“Today, the Supreme Court agreed that courts cannot slam the courthouse doors on plaintiffs seeking equal representation,” Gaber said in a statement.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenting justice in Monday’s decision. In a note included with the decision, Jackson wrote she sees “no basis for vacating” the 8th Circuit’s ruling. Jackson said the high court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais did not touch on the question central to the Turtle Mountain case — whether private citizens can file suit under Section 2 — so there are no new legal standards that would change how the 8th Circuit analyzes it.

Jackson wrote that she would instead reverse the 8th Circuit’s ruling.

Welte’s map remained in place while the tribe’s request was pending before the high court.

The North Dakota Secretary of State’s Office also must finalize maps by the December before an election year, according to legal documents the state filed in the lawsuit.

Attorneys for the state have previously said they agree with the 8th Circuit’s decision dismissing the tribes’ case, and have maintained that the Legislature’s 2021 map is not discriminatory.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais makes it much harder to challenge district maps for alleged racial discrimination.

Previously, courts had interpreted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to forbid states from adopting any maps that reduce minority groups’ voting power, whether deliberate or accidental. The Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais found that in order to be found in violation of Section 2, there must be sufficient evidence that a state chose the map with the intent to discriminate based on race.

The Native American Rights Fund, Campaign Legal Center and other groups condemned the previous decision as a blow to voting rights.

North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley told the North Dakota Monitor previously that he supports the ruling, saying it “strengthens North Dakota’s position that the Constitution is colorblind.”

This story was originally produced by North Dakota Monitor, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

When the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas’ gerrymandered congressional map to take effect in December, its conservative majority wrote that a lower court had “improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign” when it blocked the map more than three months before the election.

Now, the Supreme Court is the one upending elections.

For the past two decades, the Supreme Court has advanced the idea that federal courts should not order major changes close to an election to limit voter confusion. Over time the doctrine, first articulated in the 2006 case Purcell vs. Gonzalez, became known as the Purcell principle. 

But election law experts and one of the court’s liberal justices say the Supreme Court is wielding — or disregarding — the principle unevenly in ways that aid Republicans.

In recent weeks, the Supreme Court has effectively allowed last-minute election changes in Southern states that hold major consequences for what districts voters are assigned to and the future of Black political representation across the region.

These Republican-controlled states are racing to redraw congressional maps to eliminate majority-Black districts, many of which have elected Black Democrats to Congress. The gerrymandering rush has come even with early voting underway in some states.

Wilfred Codrington III, a professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, who has studied the Purcell principle, said limiting voter confusion is common sense. But after that general idea,  the principle “just falls apart” because the Supreme Court has never answered questions raised by the doctrine — like how close to an election is too close.

“The court has not thought through them and it seems like when the court applies them, they’re being applied in partisan ways,” Codrington said, about questions the doctrine raises.

April ruling OK’d redistricting

After the high court gutted the federal Voting Rights Act in Callais, a landmark decision on April 29 that found Louisiana’s map unconstitutional, it fast-tracked paperwork so the state could quickly redraw district lines. 

Voting had begun in the state’s congressional primary election, which Republican Gov. Jeff Landry suspended, discarding 42,000 votes already cast.

A majority of the court voted to immediately certify its decision instead of observing its typical 32-day waiting period. In a blistering dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the justices were disregarding their previous insistence that courts shouldn’t risk assuming political responsibility for a redistricting process that often produces hard feelings.

“There is also the so-called Purcell principle, which we invoked only five months ago to chide a federal district court for ‘improperly insert[ing] itself into an active primary campaign,’” Jackson wrote. “The Court unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power.”

The conservative justices on May 11 then cleared a path for Alabama to move toward implementing a Republican gerrymander that state lawmakers approved in 2023 but was blocked by a lower court. Their decision came a little more than a week before the state’s primary election. 

Republican Gov. Kay Ivey has called an August special primary election for some of the state’s congressional districts.

“The United States Supreme Court’s decision is plain common sense and enables our values to be best represented in Congress,” Ivey said in a statement.

‘Like it doesn’t exist’

The Supreme Court’s actions this spring stand in stark contrast to its December decision to allow Texas’ gerrymander to take effect. After President Donald Trump urged GOP states to redraw their maps for partisan advantage, Texas was the first state to respond, enacting new lines that could help Republicans pick up five seats.

A three-judge district court panel ruled against the map, finding that it was racially gerrymandered. The Supreme Court paused the panel’s decision, finding that the panel likely made serious errors and that the district court was “causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections” amid the campaign season.

That language echoed the Purcell decision, which found that an appeals court had erred in blocking an Arizona law requiring a photo ID to register to vote. The Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion cautioned that court orders affecting elections can cause voter confusion. 

“As an election draws closer, that risk will increase,” the 2006 opinion said.

Nearly 20 years later, the Supreme Court made no mention of Purcell in its Callais opinion, which dropped like a political bomb across the South. Since the decision, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Tennessee have either enacted new maps or are seeking to do so ahead of the November midterm elections.

Mark Johnson, a Kansas City-based lawyer with a long history of working on election litigation, noted that Callais was argued at the Supreme Court twice, first in March 2025 and again in October. The justices then waited a long time before releasing their decision, he said, adding that if they didn’t realize the implications of their ruling they were “asleep at the wheel.”

“That’s why the Callais case is so disturbing, because a Supreme Court that has by and large followed Purcell just acted like it doesn’t exist,” Johnson said.

Court legitimacy at stake

Several high-profile observers of the Supreme Court have been unsparing in their criticism of the justices’ approach. 

Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center and a foremost expert on the court, wrote in an online post that the court’s recent decisions “fatally undermine” the animating purpose of the Purcell principle.

“The Court’s own interventions are now wreaking havoc—and a majority of the justices either don’t think it’s their fault, or don’t care that it is. Either way, they don’t seem to mind the inconsistency—in a context in which it’s having the remarkably coincidental effect of benefiting Republicans,” Vladeck wrote.

Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA School of Law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, wrote on social media that the Supreme Court in Chief Justice John Roberts’ hands “has become a chaos agent in elections.”

Public support for the Supreme Court was dropping prior to Callais. An August 2025 Pew Research Center survey found 48% of Americans hold a favorable view of the court, a 22-percentage point drop from August 2020.

In the wake of the decision, Democrats have renewed their calls for court reform. Some have proposed term limits for the justices or expanding the size of the court to dilute its conservative majority. However, major changes are unlikely to become law while the U.S. Senate retains the filibuster and Trump remains in office.

For his part, Roberts has taken pains to paint the court as outside of politics. But at a judicial conference in Pennsylvania in early May, Roberts acknowledged the public thinks the justices are expressing policy preferences rather than interpreting the law.

“I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do,” Roberts said, according to The Associated Press.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another of the court’s conservatives, has drawn a distinction between federal courts ordering last-minute changes to elections and states making changes themselves — suggesting that courts shouldn’t necessarily thwart state legislatures that alter rules and procedures in the run-up to elections.

In a 2020 concurring opinion about a federal judge who had altered Wisconsin’s absentee ballot deadline amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Kavanaugh wrote that it was one thing for state legislatures to change their own election rules “in the late innings” and bear responsibility for unintended consequences.

“It is quite another thing for a federal district court to swoop in and alter carefully considered and democratically enacted state election rules when an election is imminent,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Chaotic campaign season

But voting rights advocates say Callais is unleashing a wave of voter confusion as Southern legislatures rush to gerrymander.

Tennessee’s Republican-controlled legislature passed a map May 7 that divides the Memphis area among three congressional districts. The move splits a majority-Black district in Memphis represented by U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, a white Democrat. Cohen announced Friday he wouldn’t seek reelection.

The state’s primary election is scheduled for Aug. 6.

“This is a year where we’re already in the cycle and they’re going to have to redo everything they’ve already worked on because these districts are completely different,” Matia Powell, executive director of the voting rights group Civic TN, told reporters.

The Tennessee Democratic Party and several Democratic candidates, including state Rep. Justin Pearson, who is running for Cohen’s current seat, have filed a federal lawsuit against the map. They argue the new map will cause “significant voter confusion” and severely burden the right to vote.

Tennessee Republican Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti argues the Democrats have a solution in search of a problem. Tennessee lawmakers have provided more than $3.1 million to implement the new map and that state officials are already working to meet election deadlines, Skrmetti’s office wrote in a Wednesday court filing.

“At bottom, this suit is an invitation to play politics, not law,” Tennessee Senior Assistant Attorney General Zachary Barker wrote in the filing.

U.S. District Court Judge William Campbell, a Trump appointee, on Thursday declined to immediately halt the map.

The Supreme Court has sent states the message that “there are no rules” and that state legislatures are welcome to gerrymander Black representation at any point, said Anna Baldwin, voting rights litigation director at Campaign Legal Center, which has sued over Florida’s recent gerrymander.

And the way the court applies the Purcell principle encourages states to make changes close to elections — because courts are more reluctant to block them.

“The court is creating a perverse incentive structure that ultimately does make it harder for people who are trying to protect voting rights to prevail,” Baldwin said.

Lawmakers and advocates for incarcerated Montanans discussed the possibility of adding an independent watchdog for the Department of Corrections, potentially through an ombudsman, during meetings of the Interim Law and Justice Committee this month.

Following requests from prison rights advocates, the Interim Law and Justice committee added an ombudsman panel to their agenda for May 7. The idea had previously also been discussed in a Criminal Justice Oversight Council meeting earlier this spring.

The ombudsman and out-of-state prison transfers were both taken up at the interim Law and Justice meeting, and legislators heard panel discussion from prison oversight officials in Iowa and Michigan.

Rep. Katie Fire Thunder, a Bozeman Democrat, said she’d be supportive of an ombudsman program, too, adding she’s asked for draft language on the program.

“I think an ombudsperson would be able to give us non-biased, outside perspective and clarity on what is actually happening,” Fire Thunder said in an interview with the Daily Montanan. “Not just for the families, but for the DOC and for us as legislators.”

Creating a new department or office could take a legislative act and as the 2027 session nears, interim committees are looking to finalize legislation they’ll introduce.

Some advocacy groups, including Catalyst Montana, pointed to how an ombudsman could help navigate situations like the recent out-of-state prison transfers.

“This situation would be another good reason for this committee to consider the ombudsman proposal,” Nicole Gomez-Patalano, the director of criminal legal policy at Catalyst told the interim committee. “A coordinator designated to interface with families to address their concerns and improve communication, would be really helpful at a time like this.”

 ‘A complicated system’

An ombudsman is not a new concept and in fact Montana has several, including the Department of Justice’s Office of the Child and Family Ombudsman (established in 2013 after Legislative action) and the Mental Health Ombudsman, which is housed in the Governor’s Office. 

As far as correctional ombudsman programs, that’s not a new concept nationally, either. Both Iowa and Michigan have had those offices since the 1970s and about 20 states have a corrections ombudsman in some capacity. 

They were created partially in response to prison instability and riots in the 1960s and 1970s, said Keith Barber, who helms the Michigan Office of Legislative Ombudsman. 

“It has been my experience over the years that a lot of folks, incarcerated individuals, as well as their loved ones, don’t necessarily trust what they’re being told by corrections,” Barber said. “It may be gospel truth, but they seem to trust it many times from an outside source.”

Barber added they were a “safety relief valve of a certain type.”

The offices in Iowa and Michigan have slightly different roles, but essentially provide oversight to prisons in those states. 

They operate as a tool of the legislature and have limited power, but do provide an outlet for complaints and a resource to direct families to. 

The Montana Department of Corrections is not inherently opposed to the idea, DOC director Eric Strauss said during the May 7 meeting, saying he was “pretty agnostic” to the concept.

“We earnestly do address these concerns to the best of our ability and do provide changes to our system when things are legitimately brought to our attention,” Strauss said following the panel and public comment. “So I don’t know that the ombudsman in that regard would provide a lot of value, but having said that, if they were constituted and were put into place, I think we’d be happy to work with them and try to provide some more transparency to the system overall.”

On Monday, Sen. Laura Smith, a Helena Democrat and former federal prosecutor who has served on both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees said it was an “idea worth looking into” and said she was thinking about how to build it in a meaningful way. Trust between families of those incarcerated at the state’s prison system and the agency is an issue, Smith noted, adding Strauss has been “thoughtful” on the topic. 

“I don’t think it ever hurts to have an independent entity looking at a complicated system, looking into cases,” Smith said. “Second, I think it’s an idea worth looking into because of how many individuals are now out of state.”

‘Who to call, who to email’

Amanda McKnight, an advocate whose husband, Josh, is currently incarcerated at Montana State Prison, originally brought the idea of an independent ombudsman to oversee complaints and issues regarding the Department of Corrections, to both the interim Law and Justice Committee and the Criminal Justice Oversight Council earlier this year. 

It’s a trust, communication and transparency issue, McKnight has said, something she feels an ombudsperson could help address. She hears a lot from families that connect with her through the advocacy organization she runs, 406Revolutionized, and has looked to address those concerns with state leaders. 

“I’m trying to be neutral and see both sides, but it’s hard when there’s so many families reaching out to me on a daily basis, just trying to figure out how to navigate the system, who to call, who to email,” McKnight said in an interview, adding “Or (family members) being transferred 1500 miles away with no notice.”

McKnight, and others that have spoken at legislative committees and councils, have asked for more transparency from the Department of Corrections and a better complaint process. 

One of her main frustrations centers on her husband’s welfare — Josh has a health condition, needs medication and it sometimes can be delayed, she said. 

She’s filed complaints with DOC, which McKnight said they respond to, but it can take time.

“When serious concerns arise, families are often forced to seek answers from the very same system they are concerned about in the first place,” McKnight told the interim committee on May 7. “As a result, many families feel powerless, unheard, and unsure where to turn for help.”

The Department of Corrections currently handles complaints through its Constituent Services department. 

One person is assigned to that department, though receives support from other areas, Department of Corrections spokesperson Carolynn Stocker said in an email.

“Employee workloads are monitored as part of daily operations at the DOC. At this time, Constituent Services has not been flagged as an area that requires additional resources,” Stocker wrote in response to a question regarding workload capacity. “While one position is dedicated to Constituent Services, that staff member receives assistance from the department’s administrative support staff and the Communications team to manage constituent calls and responses.”

Stocker added last week they’ve received 717 constituent calls since Jan. 1.

“This number represents logged constituent calls with some of those being repeat callers,” Stocker wrote. “Constituent Services responds to numerous other calls that don’t rise to the level of complexity that requires documentation (eg. inmate location information, referrals to cor.mt.gov.)”

Constituent Services deals with a wide range of requests, DOC deputy director Natalia Bowser told the committee. This includes wellness checks, medical care, housing, placement, visitations, finance, discipline and reentry. 

The DOC also gets requests outside of its purview — including anything related to parole, which is handled by the Montana Board of Pardons and Parole. Additionally, certain medical information protected by HIPAA cannot be released, Bowser said, which is one common source of calls, as is information regarding transfers.

“If we’re transporting inmates there are some things that we need to just kind of keep under our belt for security and safety, and so we have to explain to folks why that is,” Bowser told the committee. “Response times, of course, can vary depending on what the complexity is of the request that’s coming in, but we certainly work hard to make sure that we’re addressing them.”

‘We do not want people placed out of state’

Some of those calls and concerns have been about prison transfers and this spring: All Montana prisoners serving sentences out of the state were consolidated to Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility in Mississippi, which DOC has said will increase access to services and opportunities for inmates. 

The agency publicly announced the move after it was completed and, like all prison transfers, was done with security in mind, Strauss said during the interim Law and Justice meeting. 

Montana, dealing with prison overcrowding, has transferred hundreds of prisoners out of state to multiple facilities since 2023 due to capacity limitations at secure state facilities. 

The state is building more inmate capacity at Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge following hundreds of millions appropriated to fix the problem by the legislature and, additionally, wants to build a controversial psychiatric facility in Laurel, but it could still take until the end of the decade for those new or upgraded facilities to be fully online.

Some legislators who serve on that committee, including Fire Thunder, also expressed concern about prison conditions outside of the state and is pushing for a Mississippi trip by legislators. Rep. Steven Kelly, a Kalispell Republican and retired sheriff’s captain, also expressed interest in seeing the Mississippi prison for himself. 

“We’ve been getting quite a few emails and messages about families concerned about what is going on in Mississippi,” Fire Thunder said.

Members of the public spoke about their own difficult experiences with family members being incarcerated out-of-state at the Criminal Justice Oversight Council on May 8.

Valynda Holland, a Democrat running for Senate District 11 in Great Falls, said during the CJOC meeting that her incarcerated brother’s placement out of state was “devastating” to her family.

“Many families simply cannot afford the cost of travel, phone calls, commissary, or maintaining regular contact with loved ones who are incarcerated far from home,” Holland told the council. “At the same time, Montana taxpayers are carrying a significant financial burden through out-of-state placements and private prison contracts, while families are left struggling emotionally and financially.”

Visitations can be cancelled quickly and without notice. Some of the problems center on  staffing, DOC said, but there are other things that can go wrong with visitation scheduling.

“Correctional officer callouts do affect whether visitation may proceed as scheduled. Because visitation staff members are correctional officers, they may be reassigned to other, critical posts if staff levels dip on certain days due to employees using sick leave or personal time,” Stocker said in an email. “The DOC is evaluating alternative options for staffing visitation. In the past year, visitation has also been cancelled due to water issues, power outages, and other issues.”

Family members of those incarcerated relayed stories of traveling hundreds of miles, only for them to be turned away at the prison. The issue is compounded for the roughly 600 prisoners housed out of state.

The situation is not ideal for the Montana Department of Corrections, either, and Strauss said a State of Montana contract compliance employee is sent to the facilities for one week per month.

“We can all agree that we do not want people placed out of state,” Strauss told the interim committee. “Anyone that suggests otherwise is misguided. If we had the beds in the state, we would return those individuals to us as quickly as we could.”

The Montana Board of Land Commissioners voted to update its land exchange policy for the first time in more than two decades, with Gov. Greg Gianforte abstaining from the vote after the board overruled his request for a 30-day public scoping process. 

At its May 18 meeting, the Land Board — comprising Gianforte, and the state Superintendent of Public Instruction, Auditor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General — approved the first revisions to the land exchange policy since 2004, shifting some decisions-making power to the board and away from the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 

“This is probably the most pro-public lands proposal that’s been brought forth in a long time, because the idea is to try to deal with some long-standing issues that have hampered the land exchange process, but also to try to open up public access for those of us that are ordinary Montanans,” State Auditor James Brown said.

But Gianforte abstained from voting, after trying to amend the motion to adopt the new policy to provide a 30-day public scoping period, which he said was standard practice for the land board. 

“I think your intent to improve the land exchange process is a good one. I think the opportunity to streamline it, so that we can clean up some of this checkerboard and expand access, would be helpful to all Montanans. I support updating the policy,” Gianforte told Brown. But, “I had anticipated, in accordance with land board past practice, that we would first submit the proposal to public scoping before voting on it. It was first posted a week ago, and I don’t believe that that is sufficient time to allow adequate public input before going to public comment.”

The governor’s motion to add a 30-day public scoping period failed, with just Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen joining him. 

---

Among the powers given to the Land Board is the ability to exchange public State Trust Lands with other government agencies, or for private land “of equal or greater value” according to Montana statute. One main goal of swapping sections of public and private land is to consolidate state lands, and eliminate parcels the public isn’t able to access, such as those landlocked or cornerlocked by private holdings. 

Brown, who has been working to rewrite the internal guiding document for roughly nine months, told the Daily Montanan it was a “priority” project since taking office last year.  

A major goal for getting the policy approved on Monday was because land exchanges are a “slow moving process,” and streamlining and shortening the process will benefit Montanans, he said. 

“I had some frustrations as a private attorney that some Land Board decisions were being made at the (DNRC) level, and not reaching up into the Land Board itself,” Brown said in an interview. “This provides better optics for the application process for those who want to do these land exchanges. I’ve talked to several folks who wanted to do these exchanges, but the projects are shot down at the department level.”

The previously existing policy, adopted in 1994 and last revised in 2004, laid out the process for how the state facilitates land exchanges, with the Land Board ultimately tasked with approving changes that are considered a “good deal” for the state. 

Under the old policy, when an individual or corporation presented a proposal to the state, the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation would conduct a preliminary evaluation and could reject a proposal for not meeting requirements. If DNRC decided a proposal met requirements, they would solicit public comment and then send a preliminary report to the Board. 

Following a review by the land board, the proposed exchange would go back to DNRC for an official study to review its merits, environmental consequences, appraised land values and other factors for the board to weigh in its decision. Finally, a final review by the land board would authorize, or stop, the exchange. 

Under the newly revised policy, DNRC no longer has the authority to deny a proposed land exchange during its preliminary review. That power will solely reside with the Land Board at all stages of the process. 

It also highlights “at least seven” opportunities for the public to review and participate in the process, including submitting comments to DNRC during its preliminary review, during the Montana Environmental Policy Act review process and during the Land Board meetings where both preliminary and final reviews are completed. 

At Monday’s meeting, Brown described the revised policy as “a red-tape reduction” initiative that will “restore the financial and final decisions making back into the hands” of the Land Board. (During Gianforte’s first term, he prioritized streamlining and simplifying state processes and policy in both statute and practice under a policy he dubbed the “red-tape reduction.”) 

“We are the constitutional officers that are tasked with being the fiduciaries of the school trust, it is not the DNRC, it is us, and that’s where the decision making should be,” Brown said. “The policy is further designed to reduce existing barriers that discourage Montanans from coming to us with beneficial land exchange proposals.”

Brown said he’d been working on the policy for months, including reaching out to and meeting with DNRC staff numerous times to get input on the proposal. 

He said he didn’t receive feedback from the department earlier this year and in February asked the Land Board to put it on their May agenda “because I wasn’t getting the kind of cooperation I would otherwise expect from DNRC staff on this matter.”

A spokesperson for DNRC in an email to the Daily Montanan Monday said, “The Land Board directs and provides oversight for all proposed activities on state trust lands, including land exchanges. The DNRC executes the Board’s direction.”

At the meeting, Attorney General Austin Knudsen praised the auditor for being “absolutely relentless” in pursuing the policy change, and said the collaborative nature of the auditor’s effort was on display with support from both ranching and conservation groups, which isn’t always common in Montana. 

Public comment on the land exchange policy was largely supportive from all groups. 

“I would not be standing here today if I didn’t believe that this policy, as it’s being proposed, enhances transparency, that it increases public participation in land exchanges,” said Clayton Elliott, with Montana Trout Unlimited. “We applaud the opportunity to revise the policy of this board. We think it’s timely.”

Representatives from the Montana Stock Growers Association, the Montana Association of State Grazing Districts, and the Montana Farm Bureau Federation also spoke in favor of the revisions. 

“Montana Stock Growers and the Grazing Associations have long worked on solutions to unlock public lands, and we feel like this really does allow for that tool to be put into place,” said Raylee Honeycutt. “There are some concerns out there regarding how these land exchanges could potentially work, but I think it’s important to know one of those new components to this proposal is allowing public interest groups and actually encouraging them to engage in the process … we really think that is another opportunity for those groups who want to work towards solutions to engage.”

But some organizations said that while they supported revising the policy, the changes were quite large and the public should be allowed more time to weigh in. 

Russell Fruits, with Backcountry Hunter and Anglers, said his organization had some concerns with another provision that emphasizes an applicant for a land exchange should hire an independent consultant to “assist the department in reviewing the land exchange proposal and to facilitate the state’s administration of the land exchange process.”

Previously, the policy stated that the land exchange process “may, at the department’s discretion, be facilitated by the proponent of the land exchange,” through a contractor. 

“When one party as the agent is supposed to facilitate both sides of a transaction, the process becomes oriented towards closing and not towards protecting each party’s interest,” Fruits said. “This is exactly the structure that this proposal creates, except the underrepresented party isn’t a private buyer, it’s the public. This policy change was not requested by DNRC, the agency that actually administers these lands.”

Multiple groups agreed with Gianforte in requesting a 30-day public comment period. 

“With all due respect to Commissioner Brown, and given the overwhelming public support for public lands in Montana, we find the proposed changes to the land exchange policy as currently written to be ill-advised and difficult to identify in the context of the document. This proposal was advanced belatedly and in a nontransparent manner,” said Jeff Herbert with Montana Sportsmen Alliance. 

While Brown discussed adding the policy to the May agenda during a February land board meeting, published an opinion piece in the Bozeman Chronicle in April and published a draft document on the his office’s website last month, the final version of the revised policy was only officially released as part of the the Land Board agenda in recent weeks. 

In a statement to the Daily Montanan, a spokesperson for the Auditor’s office said there has already been “significant opportunity for public input” on the proposal, “both directly and through Land Board members elected by and accountable to Montanans.”

“Before today, much of this process was controlled behind closed doors by unelected bureaucrats,” said spokesperson Tyler Newcombe. “Auditor Brown is proud to bring more transparency and accountability to the process. At this point, calls for additional ‘scoping’ are simply delay tactics aimed at keeping power in bureaucratic hands instead of with elected officials.”

Ryan Weiss, Deputy Administrator for Trust Lands at DNRC, said during the meeting that previous board policies historically were first discussed and developed by the department, not board members, and included scoping periods. Most recently, Weiss said, a current livestock grazing proposal is being scoped out with the public before it will come back to the Land Board for final consideration. 

In a statement to the Daily Montanan after the vote, Gianforte’s office said “while the governor supports updating the land exchange policy, the historic practice of the Land Board has been to do 30-day public scoping when it is updating its policies.”

Additional changes to the land board policy included putting an emphasis on affirmative action by the Land Board — the old policy explicitly stated the board has the power to disapprove exchanges while the updated one repeatedly states the converse, that “it is the Board’s duty to approve any exchange which in its opinion would be advantageous to the state.”

This article was updated at 8 p.m. May 18 to add a comment from DNRC that was received after initial publication.

A tract of land near Yellowstone National Park which had been identified as a potential gold mining site in 2023 has been added to the roster of public lands after The Conservation Fund, the United States Forest Service and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition came together to make the transaction happen, which including purchasing land as well as mineral rights.

The 161-acre parcel was added to the Custer-Gallatin National Forest in two parcels, one acquired by the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, the other by The Conservation Fund. The deal also includes 208 acres of mineral rights to the Forest Service to ensure that the land which includes part of Palmer and Crevice Mountains will be shielded from gold mining forever.

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition had originally purchased the mineral rights, leases and claims on nearly 1,600 acres by the Crevice Mining Group, according to a joint press release put out by the two organizations. However, even after the purchase in 2023, the groups still had to work with the privately held land and mineral rights which could have reopened to mining.

The new public land will now be protected by the Yellowstone Gateway Protection Act, which passed Congress in 2019 and will protect the area from future mining.

“Protecting Yellowstone from the impacts of gold mining and securing new public land is a great outcome that benefits both iconic wildlife and local communities,” GYC Executive Director Scott Christensen said.

The groups note that the area provides habitat for grizzly bears, a migration corridor for elk, mule deer and bighorn sheep, and is one of the few designated places outside the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park where bison can freely roam.

“By securing land within this critical landscape on the edge of Yellowstone, we’re doing more than safeguarding a vital habitat,” said Gary Sullivan, Montana senior advisor at The Conservation Fund. “We’re honoring a way of life that defines Montana and ensuring future generations can experience the same wild, open spaces that make the place so special.”

The land is located near Gardiner, Montana.

The U.S. Forest Service was able to purchase the two parcels for about $2 million using the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Justice announced Monday a new “anti-weaponization” settlement fund as a condition of President Donald Trump voluntarily dropping his multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service for the leak of his tax returns several years ago.

Trump, his sons Don Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization moved to drop the $10 billion suit Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, with prejudice — meaning he cannot revive it in the future. 

Shortly after Trump’s filing hit the court docket, the DOJ announced the creation of a $1.776 billion settlement, not to be paid to Trump or his family, but to be divvied up among “others who suffered weaponization and lawfare,” according to a department press release.

Democrats swiftly denounced the settlement as a “slush fund.”

The move presumably means those pardoned by Trump for crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol could seek money from the government. The DOJ’s announcement did not specifically mention President Joe Biden, former Attorney General Merrick Garland or the Capitol riot, and noted there are “no partisan requirements to file a claim.” 

Trump campaigned on pardoning anyone prosecuted by the Biden administration for crimes related to the 2021 attack, describing them as “patriots” and “hostages.” He pardoned roughly 1,600 defendants on the first night of his second term, and the White House published a dedicated web page to those targeted by “a weaponized Biden DOJ.”

In addition to monetary relief, eligible claimants will also receive a formal apology from the government.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal defense attorney, said in a statement, “The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again.”

“As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress,” he added.

Trump, his family and the Trump organization will also receive a formal apology but no monetary damages as part of the arrangement, according to the DOJ.

Trump tax info leaked

The president and his family had filed suit in January against the IRS for the leak to news media of their tax information by a contractor in late 2019. The contractor was sentenced for the leak in early 2024.

When questioned by the press Monday afternoon, Trump said he knew “very little about” the creation of the fund. 

“These were people that were weaponized and really treated brutally by a system that was so corrupt, with corrupt people running it, and they’re getting reimbursed for their legal fees and the other things that they had to suffer,” Trump said.

A committee of five “very talented people, very highly respected people” will decide how to distribute the money, he said.

Funding an ‘insurrectionist army’ 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer denounced the plan Monday afternoon as “one of the most depraved” uses by Trump of the Justice Department.

“This weekend, Trump worked up a plan to shake hands with himself in order to fund his insurrectionist army to the tune of billions,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

“Donald Trump sued his own government. Trump’s DOJ settled with Trump. And now Trump gets a nearly $2 billion slush fund to reward his own allies, loyalists, and insurrectionists. That is not justice. That is corruption happening in broad daylight,” he continued.

In an amicus brief filed Monday afternoon, 93 House Democrats urged U.S. District Judge Kathleen Mary Williams, nominated by President Barack Obama, to immediately dismiss Trump’s “collusive lawsuit” for lack of jurisdiction.

The Democratic lawmakers argued in the filing the fund is “plainly unlawful” for numerous reasons.

“(F)iling a collusive lawsuit only to immediately dismiss it in order to produce a collusive settlement that is illegal multiple times over would not only be legally barred; it would also raise serious questions about whether the parties have manipulated the court system to achieve illicit ends,” according to the brief.

“The young man walks by himself, fast but not fast enough, far but not far enough…he must catch the last subway, the streetcar, the bus, run up the gangplanks of all the steamboats, register at all the hotels, work in the cities, answer the want ads, learn the trades, take up the jobs, live in all the boardinghouses, sleep in all the beds. One bed is not enough, one job is not enough, one life is not enough. At night, head swimming with wants, he walks by himself alone.”
― John Dos Passos, from his book “The 42nd Parallel (1930),” the first volume of the Trilogy “USA” (1937)

This passage has haunted me all my life. I first read it when I was 18, working and living alone on a boat in wet storage far out on the New River in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It spoke to me of the many, many possibilities that lay ahead of me in America. It spoke of a vast and mystical trove of possible jobs to learn and places to live and experience. It spoke to me of hope.

Every Monday the captain would visit the boat and line out my jobs for the coming week, all maintenance work, mostly sanding and painting. It was lonely, I was one of the few people working in the boatyard, dinner or groceries were a mile walk, my nearest friends were fifty miles way. I hitchhiked to visit them on weekends. After work I would sit on the front deck, smoke, and read. The boatyard was next to the Seaboard Airline Railway tracks and I would watch the Orange Blossom Special cross the drawbridge over the New River in late afternoon.

I walked many of the streets referred to in Dos Passos’ writings. I slept in dingy rooms. There was one place where we got a clean sheet once a week. It went on top and the dirty one went to the bottom. They were so old that one night I woke up hopelessly entangled in a torn bottom sheet. I worked the jobs; dishwasher, busboy, bellboy, second mate, counterman, donut maker, brickyard worker. I learned that every job had a purpose, every job had a rhythm, and, if it involved working with others, a choreography. I learned also that every job had dignity and I was proud of doing my work well.

Years later, at 33, my father died and I came into enough money to buy a small ranch in Trout Creek. It was a rough go and needed lots of work to clear land and I was now an employer hiring what seemed to be every high school kid in Trout Creek. And they were all good workers, hard workers, and it surprised me that they turned out so differently from one another. One, who became my regular hired hand, was orphaned when he was 16. I gave him a raise every year until he hit a great job core drilling for a mining exploration company and I couldn’t afford to match their wages. He put himself through college in electrical engineering and now works in the aerospace industry. Another managed to get on with a telephone company and did well. The others? Many were felled by booze and drugs. Back then there was not a lot of opportunity for a kid to get a decent job, and I was always happy when someone from “The Creek” made it good. Still am.

One fellow who worked for me for a couple of years was hitchhiking home across country and got lost in Denver. He asked a man if he knew how to get back to the freeway. “I don’t”, the man said, “But if you want a job with the circus, I can give you one.” And the next time I heard from him he was on the Circus ship off the coast of Argentina living next to the Big Cat cages. Now he is ill and after 40 years I am going to go visit him in rural New York state. I will take to him a book on his circus, “The Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Combined Shows,” that was given to me by my friend Paul Ringling of White Sulphur Springs, Montana.

What I carry with me from Dos Passos’ quote is the sense that there is worth in all work, that there is opportunity for adventure, and maybe even success, and that everyone’s life is intersected by the lives of others, maybe for a moment, maybe for a lifetime. Grab it while you can.

BUTTE — Former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was greeted by more than 1,000 people on Sunday, speaking to an energetic crowd in The Mother Lode Theatre about getting corporate money out of politics.

Organizers and advocates in Montana are pushing for a citizen’s statutory initiative I-194, the Montana Plan, which seeks to remove corporate spending from politics. The Transparent Election Initiative, a nonprofit organization led by former Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Jeff Mangan, is leading the effort.

More than 3,000 people sent in an RSVP for the event, organizers said, and The Mother Lode Theatre — capacity 1,200 — was full to the brim, with a carryover event at the Knights of Columbus bar next door. Organizers said they have about half the number of needed signatures, slightly more than 30,000, which must be submitted by June 19. If the signatures are gathered, the issue will appear on the November ballot in an effort to create a new law.

Multiple speakers, including Buttigieg, pointed to Butte’s history with politicians, corporations and spending on elections. Specifically, they talked about the Copper King era, which led to the state’s Corrupt Practices Act, a 1912 law that followed a bribery scandal.

“Butte, Montana, knows a thing or two about what happens when special interests and corporations get out of control,” Buttigieg said. “These days when we say that corporations are buying politicians, we usually mean it more as kind of a metaphor. There was a time in Montana where it was literally true, and they say that William Clark said he never bought a man who wasn’t for sale, wearing that corruption out in the open, something we’re starting to get familiar with again.”

In a media scrum after the event, Buttigieg said he came across the Montana Plan a few months ago and became interested in it. He’s been outspoken against the Citizens United case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court enshrined the right for corporations to be considered “artificial persons” in the eyes of the law.

“I thought this really is a very creative way to establish this principle in America’s belief without running afoul of (the Citizen’s United) case,” Buttigieg said.

Buttigieg pointed to the “explosion” of special interest funding, the millions of dollars spent in recent elections in the state. He also said that there were 370,000 political ads in Montana in 2024, and the U.S. Senate race ended up costing $487 per voter.

He pointed to other, long-term goals he has as well — changing the U.S. Constitution to stop corporate spending, as well as establishing term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices.

On the potential for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Buttigieg quipped that “prohibition didn’t really go over well in Butte to begin with.”

“The tradition of this state shows that you don’t have to accept the unacceptable, and that’s what the Montana Plan is,” Buttigieg said. “The cleverness of the Montana Plan is it flips the script on these corporations that have claimed to have the exact same civil rights that you and I do — and don’t get me wrong, I want businesses to thrive, I want businesses to be treated fairly — but a corporation is not the same thing as a person.”

Former Montana Gov. Steve Bullock also spoke to the long history of corporate interests influencing politics, even bringing up one famous case where William Clark and Marcus Daly spent millions in today’s dollars to influence a U.S. Senate election.

“This fight means a great deal to each and every one of us as Montanans, but it also means a great deal to our nation and our democracy,” Bullock said.

One of the loudest cheers came when Buttigieg mentioned data centers, a hot-button topic in Butte — and throughout Montana — as NorthWestern Energy, the state’s largest energy provider, is in the midst of a high-profile potential merger with Black Hills Corp.

That push is at least in part due to data centers looking to Montana as a potential location for their operations.

“You’re not alone if you believe that if somebody wants to come in and put a data center, they ought to have to prove to the satisfaction of the community and its leaders,” Buttgieg said, adding, “You’re not alone if you recognize that in order for those technologies to keep all those promises they’re making, about a shorter work week and more money in your pocket, instead of even more concentrated wealth and power in even fewer hands, we are going to have to take control of that as a matter of policy choice.”

Buttigieg, took questions for more than 30 minutes following his speech, touching on a variety of issues, including civility in politics. Buttigieg, pointing out he spends time on conservative television, said he can’t blame people for not “embracing” his point of view if they’ve never heard it.

“I think that civility would improve if we had more outcomes that at least roughly reflected what most Americans believe,” Buttigieg said. “We’re always going to have things we disagree on. We’re going to have 50/50 issues, and by the way, we’re going to have issues sometimes where the popular thing is not always the right thing.”

The Department of Public Health and Human Services recently hosted its fourth annual Disability Employment Summit in an effort to increase job access for Montanans.

DPHHS reported there are around 79,000 Montanans with disabilities aged 18 to 64. There are about 41,000 Montanans with disabilities in the workforce and an additional 3,000 that are in the labor force but are currently unemployed.

“The summit is an excellent opportunity for Montana businesses to learn from experts about the value of employing individuals with disabilities,” Montana Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras said in a press release. “Across Montana, people with disabilities are already contributing in numerous ways, and many more are ready and eager to put their talents to work for employers.”

More than 35 organizations signed up for the conference, which connected business leaders with ways to navigate workplace accommodations. The event also fit in with an effort by Gov. Greg Gianforte, the 406 JOBS initiative, which seeks to modernize the state’s workforce.

DPHHS has a Disability Employment and Transitions Division, which helps to connect businesses with people with disabilities who are seeking employment.

“We support businesses with a wide array of services, resources, and solutions related to disability employment,” Chanda Hermanson, a DPHHS administrator in that program, said in a press release. “Our team provides no-cost assistance to help employers recruit skilled candidates, retain quality staff, improve workplace accessibility, and access tools that save time and money.”

Two conservation organizations filed suit in federal district court against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over a delayed decision about whether the world’s smallest rabbit species qualifies for Endangered Species Act protections. 

Just days before the 21st annual Endangered Species Day — celebrated nationwide on May 15 to recognize commitments to protect and restore imperiled wildlife — Western Watersheds Project and WildEarth Guardians filed their complaint in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon. The suit says that the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to issue a finding on a 2023 petition to list the pygmy rabbit, found in sagebrush habitat across the intermountain west including Montana, as threatened or endangered within the required 12-month period. 

“Our petition presented clear and compelling evidence that the government should take a close look at the threats to the pygmy rabbit and its sagebrush habitats and make the decision about whether to give them the protections of the Endangered Species Act,” said Greta Anderson, deputy director of Western Watersheds Project. “Instead, the agency continues to rush through decisions to destroy pygmy rabbit habitat, authorize extractive uses without oversight, and ignore the plight of this little bunny.”

Pygmy rabbits are found in the Great Basin and intermountain West — comprising parts of Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, Colorado, California and Oregon.

In Montana, pygmy rabbits are considered a “species of concern” by the state, due to risk of habitat loss from clearing sagebrush for agriculture, invasive grass species and disease. The rabbit is found in just a small section of the state, the southwestern corner near Dillon. 

There is also a population of pygmy rabbits in the Columbia Basin in Washington State, which was listed as an endangered species in 2003. 

The petition submitted to the federal government seeks to add protections to the rabbits’ populations in other states, where their habitat — areas of deep soil among tall, dense sagebrush and low tree cover — is at risk of loss due to increased wildfires, development and agricultural uses. 

“These threats are often cumulative and mutually reinforcing,” the lawsuit states. “Grazing, vehicle traffic, and infrastructure increase disturbance and invasion risk, invasive annual grasses promote more frequent and intense fires, and repeated fires can convert sagebrush steppe to annual grassland—resulting in progressive loss of the mature, connected, big sagebrush habitat needed for pygmy rabbit survival and recovery.”

The rabbit is also newly impacted by rabbit hemorrhagic disease, a highly infectious and lethal virus first documented in Nevada in 2022, according to the organizations. 

Giving pygmy rabbits ESA protections across more of their range would mean increased inter-agency consultation on federally-approved projects, increased habitat protections and mandatory recovery planning by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

“The service has acknowledged that Endangered Species Act protections for the pygmy rabbit may be warranted but has dragged its feet on its legal obligation to finalize a listing decision,” said Thomas Delehanty, senior attorney with Earthjustice’s Rocky Mountain Office. “Listing the pygmy rabbit will help ensure that the highly biodiverse sagebrush steppe receives much-needed protections as well.”

In 2023, the conservation organization submitted a petition to the federal government requesting ESA protections for the rabbit. 

In January 2024, the Service issued a finding that the petition “presented substantial information” that listing the pygmy rabbit might be warranted. That finding triggered a 12-month period to issue another finding, but the Service has not issued one, now more than two years later. 

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to issue a 12-month listing determination, and compel the Service to issue their finding.  

USFWS Director Brian Nesvik and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum are also named in the lawsuit. 

EarthJustice is representing Western Watersheds Project and WildEarth Guardians in their suit.

While the populace suffers severe and rapidly spreading economic repercussions from Trump and Israel’s war of choice against Iran, Montana’s entire congressional delegation seems to be missing in action — or perhaps “inaction,” since they’re tough to find when it comes to answering to the people they were elected to serve.

Of course Montanans are not dumb — quite the opposite.  Our state ranks sixth in nationwide rankings of intelligence.  Nor are we easy to fool. To paraphrase an outgoing Lee editor’s advice to any incoming editor: “Don’t try to bullshit Montanans. They can smell it a mile away.”

About now that’s some advice our four largely absent Congressional delegation should heed. Sure, Daines is out the door thanks to his last-minute decision to not run for re-election when he had more than $6 million in his campaign account — but his term runs until January of next year. He’s got time to take a junket to China, just not time to come explain to his constituents what the hell is going on in Congress.

Ryan Zinke says he isn’t seeking re-election due to medical reasons. But again, he’s still in office until January, and collecting his paychecks from taxpayers who can’t afford to fill up their trucks with diesel heading toward $6 a gallon, adding to the shock of buying groceries to keep your family fed.

Old Troy Downing, remember him, is running for another term as our eastern district congressman. You’ll probably get some mailers from him a lot sooner than you’ll see him in person since town halls are now pretty much off the table for our politicians due to citizen discontent.

And then there’s Tim Sheehy, about to become Montana’s “senior senator” after one year in office. He’s busy, too. When he’s not explaining his latest plane crash, or paying for Trump’s vanity ballroom with taxpayer money, he’s submitting bills targeting foreign mining labor practices. Yep, he thinks his job is telling other countries how they should run their mining practices while Butte — and hundreds of other toxic mining waste sites in Montana — struggle to find funds to clean up our own horrendous past environmental disasters.

Now what issues might be facing Montanans that our Congressional delegation could and should weigh in on? Let’s see, could it possibly be the data centers eyeing our scarce water resources and threatening to drive our utility bills through the roof? How about the $16 billion mega-merger of NorthWestern Energy with Black Hills Corp that’s courting investors with the profits they’ll make on the data centers?

Or, closer to hallowed halls of Congress, how about the bill introduced this week by Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Wyoming Sen. Cynthia Lummis to jam a new four-lane interstate from Choteau down through the Madison River valley and name it I-47 after Trump, our historically most unpopular president? Surely our illustrious senators must be following the bills introduced in their own chamber … and might want to hear from Montanans and even let us know where they stand.

The issues facing Montana and Montanans are legion nowadays, right in line with the trauma the rest of the nation is facing. But as the saying goes, “the fish rots from the head” — and when the president refuses to answer questions, attacks and insults reporters who ask them, that sets the example for Congress and the agencies to do the same.

Somewhere back in time, they used to be called “public servants” — until they decided to cut the public out of the equation and serve monied interests instead.

WASHINGTON — Democrats and advocacy groups urged a quick rejection of President Donald Trump’s latest executive order on compiling citizenship lists and creating traceable mail-in ballots in a federal court hearing Thursday.

Lawyers for the Democratic National Committee, Democratic minority leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, and interest groups argued that, with the midterm elections less than six months away, there was no time to see how the Trump administration executes the order.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, argued the order had not been put into effect yet and therefore could not be overturned.

The groups are seeking a nationwide preliminary pause on Trump’s late-March order that U.S. citizenship and age data from the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security be provided to states.

The proposal would result in a “maximum amount of confusion” and be a “nightmare for election officials,” said Danielle Lang, who argued on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens. “Waiting will only erode public confidence in elections.”

Thursday’s hearing marked the first courtroom showdown over the executive order. A coalition of Democratic state attorneys general have also sued to block the order. At least five lawsuits have been filed in total.

Trump’s edict also orders the U.S. Postal Service to promulgate a rule that would design special envelopes for mail-in ballots, including a unique barcode. States, which the U.S. Constitution delegates authority over election administration to, have argued the order would restrict mail-in voting.

‘No one knows’

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, had tough questions for both sides. He suggested the Democrats’ and aligned groups’ challenges may be premature because a rule specifying how the order would operate has yet to be written, though he also grasped their argument that the order was inherently unconstitutional. 

“No one knows what’s gonna be in the rule,” Nichols told lawyers for the Democratic groups.

“I think it’s very clear from the EO (executive order) that we know exactly what’s gonna be in the rule,” said Lalitha Madduri, who represented the Democratic groups and congressional leaders.

After back-and-forth, Nichols conceded, “I agree with your point: There can be no rulemaking consistent with the EO that can be lawful.”

Madduri also argued there is “no way to repair that harm” of uncertainty for voters.

Department of Justice senior trial counsel Stephen Pezzi said the plaintiffs have a right to “prepare for the darkest fears,” but, he argued, they can’t win a preliminary injunction based on speculation of error-prone citizenship lists and a postal rule not yet created.

There’s “certainly no irreparable harm,” Pezzi said.

Of the lists of intra-agency government data compiling U.S. citizens and their ages, Pezzi said “it’s not a list of individuals to be targeted. It’s not a list of noncitizens.” He also said it’s “not a concern” of the federal government what states do with the lists, if they even decide to use them.

“No list’s ever going to be perfect,” Pezzi said, adding that “responsible” states would not blindly kick people off voter rolls if their names do not appear on the lists verifying citizenship.

Commitment to updates

Nichols told Pezzi in the event he denied a preliminary injunction, he would expect information sharing from the government as the case continued.

“Fair enough,” Pezzi said.

“I didn’t hear a commitment,” Nichols warned, prompting agreement from Pezzi.

Nichols said he would soon issue an order and opinion, but did not specify a date. 

“I understand the time pressure here,” he said.

He warned the government to notify him of “anything even approaching a material change” on implementing Trump’s executive order — though he stopped short of issuing an official order requiring updates. But, he said, “it would not be good for the government,” if they do not promptly inform him of new developments.

Trump’s elections push

Democrats and voting rights groups maintain Trump’s order is effectively compiling an illegal national voter list and usurping the state authority over elections. The order’s opponents accuse Trump of trying to unilaterally assert power over elections.

Trump and his aides say the order will help secure the midterm elections this November. While voter fraud is extremely rare, Trump has long promoted false conspiracy theories surrounding his 2020 election loss.

The executive order, signed by Trump on March 31, came amid a broader campaign by the president to influence how elections are run. 

The Justice Department has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia for sensitive voter data that it plans to use to identify potential noncitizen voters. 

Trump has demanded that Congress pass the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to show documents proving their citizenship, though the bill has stalled in the Senate. Last year, Trump signed an executive order to unilaterally impose similar requirements that was blocked in federal court.

“President Trump has tried repeatedly to rewrite election rules for his own perceived partisan advantage,” Madduri, an attorney at Elias Law Group, wrote in a court filing.

GOP officials defend order

Republican state attorneys general have intervened in the lawsuits on behalf of the Trump administration and have urged federal judges to uphold the executive order. They have cast the order as offering “optional” resources.

Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas intervened in the suit argued Thursday and were represented in the courtroom.  

The states “would like to access this resource so they may verify the accuracy of their own voter-registration lists. This flow of information between federal and state agencies is a common and critical feature of our federal system,” the Republican officials wrote in an April 20 court document.

The order requires lists of voting-age U.S. citizens living in each state to be provided to state officials at least 60 days before each federal election. 

The order does not tell states how to use the data, but it instructs the U.S. attorney general to prioritize investigations into state and local officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters.

The list of citizens will be drawn from naturalization and Social Security records, according to the order. It will also include data from SAVE, a powerful computer program maintained by Homeland Security that verifies citizenship by checking names against information in federal databases. 

The order also directs states, at least 90 days before a federal election, to tell the U.S. Postal Service whether they intend to allow ballots to be sent through the mail. States would then have to submit to USPS a list of voters planning to vote by mail at least 60 days before the election.

Opponents of the order argue that under federal law Trump cannot direct the postmaster general to take any action — on elections or any other matter. The Postal Service is overseen by a Board of Governors and the postmaster general reports to the board. 

Trump’s allies argue that the Constitution grants the president sweeping authority over executive branch agencies and that Congress cannot place agencies, like the Postal Service, beyond the president’s reach.

Energy conservation groups see significant risk with the proposed merger between NorthWestern Energy and Black Hills Corp — so some are using the deal to advance their own priorities.

Lawyer Meridian Wappett, with Western Environmental Law Center, said “mergers of this magnitude are rare in Montana,” and the groups her team represents saw a way to seed their interests into the new utility, a $15.4 billion operation.

“The (Public Service) Commission’s review of this application presents a unique and limited opportunity to ensure that the public interest is protected and that the benefits of the consolidation flow meaningfully to ratepayers rather than exclusively to shareholders,” Wappett said.

This week, the Montana Public Service Commission is holding a hearing on the proposed merger, announced in August 2025, and commissioners have heard many concerns about data centers and potential rate increases on residential customers.

But members of groups that entered into settlements with the utilities discussed how they negotiated wins for their organizations if the merger goes through, such as competitive wages for workers and membership on an energy steering committee for conservation advocates.

Benjamin Otto, a senior policy associate with NW Energy Coalition, said his organization teamed up with a couple of others to try to ensure the merger doesn’t result in harm, such as poor planning by the utilities or loss of energy programs.

Otto said the joint energy advocates, made up of NW Energy Coalition, Renewable Northwest, and Montana Renewable Energy Association, ensured the utilities will “fully consider” all ideas when planning for electricity needs in the future.

The group elicited an agreement the utilities will work on energy efficiency, and it also secured a membership on the Electric Technical Advisory Committee, which advises NorthWestern Energy on resource planning.

“We’ve not had a seat at this table before,” Otto said. “We think it’s a really important seat because it really lays the groundwork for future utility programs (and) policies.”

Adam Haight, with Laborers’ International Union of North America Local 1686, shared some of the concessions his group had negotiated with the utilities. For example, it secured a “market wage certification.”

“It ensures that NorthWestern is utilizing contractors that are paying competitive wages,” Haight said.

He said doing so means using skilled and qualified laborers, which translates to safe and reliable infrastructure for Montana ratepayers.

Haight said his organization represents members who work in numerous areas, the public sector, construction, energy, pipelines, who work on contract for NorthWestern Energy.

After the merger, he said, NorthWestern Energy also will give positive consideration to contractors that use apprentice training programs, or an equivalent, which is critical for the future of the field.

“This is a really important component of making sure that we have a diversely skilled workforce to meet the needs of the utility and ratepayers,” Haight said.

In response to a question from Commissioner Brad Molnar, a representative of the Large Customer Group also talked about the benefits for his group of entering into a settlement with the utilities.

Michael Gorman said the Large Customer Group, which represents large businesses such as refineries, is interested in continuing to receive “reliable and competitively priced utility service,” and he believes it secured provisions in the merger to that end.

For example, Gorman said those include a commitment that the new company allocates cost in a way that is fair and doesn’t include “unnecessary subsidization of non-regulated affiliates” within the new structure.

The hearing is expected to continue Friday morning and conclude in the afternoon. The merger also requires approval from regulators in Nebraska and South Dakota.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House Thursday rejected a proposal to rein in President Donald Trump’s months-long military actions in Iran that have left more than a dozen U.S. military members dead, while killing thousands of civilians and displacing millions in the Middle East, according to third-party monitors. 

The measure, known as the War Powers Resolution, is a tool for Congress to limit the president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad. The resolution failed in a 212-212 vote. Most Democrats voted for the measure, though Jared Golden of Maine opposed it. Three Republicans also crossed party lines to vote in favor. They were Tom Barrett of Michigan, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey sponsored the measure, H.Con. Res. 75. 

During Wednesday’s debate on the House floor, Gottheimer said that Congress has still not been briefed on the progress or objectives in the Iran war, and argued it’s a violation of the U.S. Constitution. 

“Oversight is a key constitutional responsibility of Congress,” he said. 

Pentagon officials testified before Congress this week that the war so far has cost $29 billion, not including Iran’s drone and missile damage to U.S. military installations in the region.

Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued on the House floor that Iran was an “imminent threat.” He added that he was satisfied with the briefings from the Trump administration’s top military officials. 

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday rejected an identical measure, its seventh vote on the matter. Three Republicans joined nearly all Democrats, a sign of growing dissatisfaction with the president’s own party amid the war. 

GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky joined Democrats. Sen. John Fetterman, Democrat of Pennsylvania, joined Republicans. 

The Iran war started on Feb. 28 and so far, at least 13 U.S. military members have died. Human Rights Activists in Iran, a nongovernmental organization based in Fairfax, Virginia, estimated that at least 1,701 civilians, including 254 children have died because of the war. 

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated in late March that up to 3.2 million Iranians have been displaced due to the U.S. and Israel attack on Iran.  

WASHINGTON — U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon took heat Thursday over forthcoming changes to the federal student loan system that will impose new borrowing limits for professional and graduate students.  

Lawmakers took specific aim at stricter loan caps set to be established for students pursuing advanced programs that do not fall under the department’s “professional” classification, such as nursing, teaching and social work. 

Members on both sides of the aisle voiced their criticisms during a hearing of the U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce, where McMahon defended the incoming federal student loan overhaul as well as President Donald Trump’s administration’s separate, ongoing efforts to dismantle the 46-year-old department. 

McMahon emphasized that her department is “not making any kind of a judgment relative to professional degrees” and instead is trying to “bring down the cost” of tuition. 

The secretary pointed to “exorbitant” college costs, noting that “students are burdened with debt.” 

Megabill provision

The imminent shifts to the federal student loan system stem from congressional Republicans’ tax and spending cut megabill that Trump signed into law last year. The department this month published the finalized regulations consistent with the law’s directive. Most provisions will take effect July 1.

The regulations eliminate the Grad PLUS program, which allowed for graduate and professional students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance. 

Graduate student loans will also have a $20,500 annual cap and $100,000 aggregate limit. Professional student loans will have a yearly limit of $50,000 and aggregate cap of $200,000. 

But the programs falling under the department’s “professional” category — and thus eligible for the higher borrowing limit — are limited to pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology and clinical psychology. 

The agency has also clarified, in an agency fact sheet on the finalized regulations, that the “professional” student classifications “do not express a value judgment about the importance of any occupation or field” but instead serve a “loan-administration function.”

‘Tone-deaf’ message

Rep. Jahana Hayes said she was “very concerned” about the department’s “professional” student classifications, noting that these limits “make higher education, especially master’s degree programs, more difficult to afford for nursing, social workers (and) teachers.” 

The Connecticut Democrat clapped back at McMahon’s assertion that the overhaul is about bringing down college costs, saying: “The people who can afford it don’t apply for these programs, the people who can afford it don’t need student loans, the people who come from communities like mine and just want to go back and serve those communities are the ones who are going to be most affected, not the colleges, not the universities, not the board of directors, not the top 1%.”

Rep. Joe Courtney, also a Connecticut Democrat, blasted the regulations’ exclusion of nursing from the “professional” category as “one of the most insulting, tone-deaf messages to 5 million nurses imaginable across the country.” 

Courtney added that the exclusion “will, in fact, raise education costs for critically needed nurses,” and pointed to a petition from the American Nurses Association that received more than 245,000 signatures and urged the department to include nursing programs in its “professional” definition. 

McMahon defended her department’s “professional” classification to the panel, arguing that the agency “looked very, very carefully at the entire nursing profession,” and “95% of the nurses that are in programs do not exceed these caps.” 

The secretary added that “78% of the nurses that are moving for graduate programs do not exceed or come up to these caps.”

Even some Republican members on the panel, whose party championed the “big, beautiful” law that sets forth the student loan overhaul, called into question the new limits.  

Rep. Lisa McClain, chair of the House Republican Conference, asked McMahon “if there’s any way, or you had any thoughts on: Can we explore opening the nurse graduate programs up to expand these caps or lift these caps, because it’s a good return on investment, and we sure do need them?” 

In the GOP’s tax and spending cut law, “one of the things we did was we put the caps on, but we had some carveouts and caveats … and I think this sector of graduate nursing programs was just an unintended consequence, perhaps, that got overlooked,” the Michigan Republican said. 

“And what I’m here to do is really advocate for these programs, because I think they’re extremely important.” 

Legislation to reverse the caps

Bipartisan efforts are underway in Congress to both address the forthcoming loan limits and expand the “professional” student definition. 

Rep. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican, introduced a bill in December that would expand the “professional” definition to also include “nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, ministry, social work, audiology, physician assistant, public health, business administration and management, accounting, architecture, secondary education, and special education.” 

Rep. Tim Kennedy of New York brought forth legislation in December with fellow Democratic Reps. Jill Tokuda of Hawaii and Rep. Shomari Figures of Alabama that would ensure graduate and professional students are subject to the same annual and aggregate loan caps. 

Rep. Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat, introduced a bill that would “restore the full loan limits that were narrowed” under the GOP’s mega tax and spending cut law. 

In the upper chamber, Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, a Maryland Democrat, introduced a companion bill to Torres’ in March, which has drawn more than a dozen co-sponsors.  

Meanwhile, a handful of Democratic lawmakers brought forth a resolution this month that seeks to reverse the forthcoming student loan regulations through the Congressional Review Act, a procedural tool Congress can use to overturn certain actions from federal agencies.

Those lawmakers are: Rep. Suzanne Bonamici and Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Rep. John Mannion of New York, Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois and Alsobrooks. 

On Thursday, two conservation organizations filed a lawsuit in Lewis and Clark District Court seeking to “cement the legality” of corner crossing in Montana while respecting private property rights. 

“It doesn’t matter what side of the barbed wire, or political aisle you stand on, we are all public land owners with a vested interest in our public lands,” said Ryan Callaghan, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. “Corner crossing while respecting private property is a practical ‘middle ground’ that the vast majority of Montanans support. Shutting the public out of 871,000 acres of public lands is not.” 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks considers corner crossing, the act of crossing from a public parcel of land to a corner-adjacent parcel, to be illegal in Montana, despite a recent federal court’s ruling that it is allowed in certain other states. 

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and the Public Land & Water Access Association, jointly filed the legal complaint, saying in a press release they had met with Montana FWP representatives several times about the issue of corner crossing, but had not found a “constructive path forward from the state.”

Lawsuit

Montana Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and Public Land and Waters Access filed suit in Montana’s First Judicial District Court against Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks and Director Christy Clark.

The suit challenges a January internal memo stating that “corner crossing remains unlawful in Montana.”

The filing alleges the memo constitutes a “rule” adopted by the FWP, without following the procedural requirements of theMontana Administrative Procedure Act, and seeks it be declared invalid. 

In addition, “plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that FWP’s interpretation and determination of corner crossing as a violation of Montana’s criminal and hunting laws is an incorrect statement of Montana law and directly in conflict with federal law governing much of the lands at issue,” according to the complaint. 

Specifically, the complaint seeks a ruling that the FWP memo “is in conflict with existing legal authority, is not based on an established statute or common law precedent in this state, is an abrogation of the state’s public trust duties, and is in direct conflict with the recent adjudication of the merits of this issue by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.”

The plaintiffs also seek an injunction from the court against FWP enforcing the the memo.

“Montanans deserve clear, consistent guidance on how they can access their public lands,” said Alex Leone, executive director for Public Land & Water Access Association. “There is a commonsense path that respects private property while ensuring public lands aren’t effectively blocked. We’ve worked in good faith to find that solution and remain ready to do so.”

The legal maneuver comes one day after Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras, a former property law professor, gave a presentation to the Montana Environmental Quality Council reviewing relevant case law. 

“I do think the law is clear that it’s a trespass, but I do acknowledge that if you’re not an attorney, you have to dig into the statutes, and it may not be clear or obvious,” Juras told the Legislative Environmental Quality Council on Wednesday. “One thing (you as a hunter) have done that is absolutely lawful, is to seek the consent and the permission of the landowner.”

But some lawmakers and conservation groups say the issue remains a legal gray area as questions remain whether a court with jurisdiction over Montana would agree with the state’s current interpretation of corner crossing as illegal trespass, or would align with last year’s U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that doing so is allowed.

“In my experience, if we talked to 10 other attorneys, we’d probably get a different interpretation,” Senate Minority Leader Pat Flowers said Wednesday. “We didn’t hear from a judge today. We didn’t hear from the Ninth Circuit. We heard an opinion, a well informed opinion that I respect. And I would like to hear what kind of counterpoint arguments would be on this same topic.”

Callaghan had given his own public comment at Wednesday’s meeting, saying clarification on whether the Gianforte administration’s stance was rooted in opinion or law was needed. 

Corner crossing has long been a point of contention in the West, where federal land, mapped and platted in 640-acre squares, was doled out in a checkerboard pattern to private companies such as railroads, private individuals as incentives to move west and homestead, and states. 

Subdividing land into near squares means that if every-other parcel of a block of land is public, they only connect at the infinitesimal point between 90-degree corners. 

According to a report by mapping software company OnX, there are 8.3 million acres of public land across the West that is corner locked, including 871,000 acres in Montana — more than half of the 1.52 million total acres of landlocked public land in the state. 

Juras said that the corner-locked acreage represents less than 3% of the state’s federal lands, adding the report might not take into consideration “unlocked” lands due to the state’s many public access incentive programs. 

For years, Montana has taken steps to reduce land- and corner-locked public parcels by creating incentives for landowners to grant access to hunters, hikers, and other recreational pursuits. 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has approximately 70 agreements in place to open up 530,000 acres of “inaccessible or under-accessible” public land, according to Juras’ presentation. Participating landowners can receive payments of up to $15,000 a year, plus funds used to make improvements that facilitate access. 

There is also the state’s Block Management framework, which pays landowners for walk-in corridors for hunters to cross public land to access adjacent public land, and conservation easements, which can permanently unlock public hunting access. 

“The Gianforte administration supports public access,” Juras said. “I know this legislature — we all love to hunt. We love our public lands. We want to create public access. And you, the legislature, have funded programs that currently exist that do provide programs to enhance public access.”

Semi-binding precedent, just not in Montana?

Corner-crossing discussions have come to the forefront across the West following a high-profile lawsuit against four hunters who corner-crossed in Wyoming from one section of federal land to another.

The hunters from Missouri, in 2020, found a checkerboard corner between the public land and private parcels owned by Iron Bar Holdings. The hunters grabbed a steel post erected at the corner, and swung around it, only physically touching the public land but passing through the air above the private parcels. 

In 2021, the hunters returned, and brought a portable ladder that they anchored on the public parcels, crossing over the posts and chains that denoted the corner.  

The owner of Iron Bar sued for civil trespassing, but ultimately the 10th Circuit Court stated in a 2025 ruling that while Wyoming law considered corner crossing trespass, federal law held that Iron Bar could not deny access to public lands, thus the hunters’ actions were lawful since they did not physically touch private land.

An appeal to the Supreme Court was not taken up, leaving the 10th Circuit decision in place and opening access to land-locked public parcels in six western states. 

“That does not mean they approved the 10th Circuit Decision,” Juras said. “They’re very busy, they pick the cases, they don’t have time to hear them all.”

And Montana is under the jurisdiction of the federal 9th Circuit Court, not the 10th. 

Juras cited a 1902 decision, Potts v. United States, that held a property owner can fence in their private lands even if it shuts out the public “from any part of the public domain,” as long as that is not the landowner’s intention. 

“So in my opinion, that’s the prevailing law in the Ninth Circuit,” Juras told the Council.

Juras consulted with FWP Director Christy Clark following the 10th Circuit ruling last fall and the agency later reiterated the position that corner crossing remains unlawful in Montana. In a memo issued by the department, FWP said wardens “will continue to report corner crossing cases to local county attorneys.”

But some members of the public criticized Juras’ legal interpretation during public comment. 

Eric Vilen, a Helena resident, said corner-locked parcels of public land represent “a significant limitation in recreation” for ordinary citizens who do not have access to large tracts of private land, and he urged lawmakers to take up the issue.  

“This affects many residents’, including myself, ability to hunt and those of us that don’t want to spend millions of dollars in a legal case simply don’t corner cross because it’s so ambiguous,” Vilen said. “I encourage the Legislature to define this one way or another so conservation groups, state agencies and, quite frankly, private industries can look at ways to make fences and address the problem we have here in Montana.”

Representatives of the Montana Farm Bureau Federation and Montana Stockgrowers Association also said clarity from the administration was crucial to their members. 

“As private landowners like my membership, we want to know what the law is, too, and we do want clarity. It, of course, is our position that corner crossing is not a legal form of access,” said Kari Johnson with the Farm Bureau.

Johnson said the access programs offered by the state don’t have much participation, and higher incentives could drive greater action from landowners. 

“I think there’s opportunities there where we can thread that needle, where we protect those Montana values, where we care about private property rights, we care about land stewardship, we care about wildlife management, but we also recognize that a lot of the people that are coming here are coming here because we have wonderful outdoor spaces,” Johnson said. 

Raylee Honeycutt, with the Montana Stockgrowers Association, said Juras’ presentation highlighted “the importance of private property owners rights and their ability to protect the airspace and land from trespass.”

The Stockgrowers Association had filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court asking them to take up the Iron Bar decision, and was “very disappointed” when they declined to take up the issue. 

“We ask for your continued support of helping us stand behind private property rights as we protect our airspace and our land and ensure that these laws that are in place are being upheld and not necessarily needing to be defined in a different way, just because organizations or groups don’t agree with what they say,” Honeycutt said. 

One organization seeking more clarity is the Montana Wildlife Federation, which released a statement following the “one-sided presentation” by Juras.

“Despite the lieutenant governor’s interpretation, it appears that corner crossing in Montana remains a true legal gray area,” Executive Director Frank Szollosi said. “The bottom line is that certainty is needed for all stakeholders — including hunters, landowners, wardens, prosecutors, and public land managers. 

“… lawmakers didn’t provide the clarity on corner crossing that Montanans need,” Szollosi said. “This meeting room wasn’t a courtroom. There were no new laws passed.”

Mike Volesky, a longtime FWP employee and former chief of operations and deputy director, said during public comment the administration’s current approach stands in “sharp contrast” to previous FWP memos, which directed wardens to refrain from issuing citations.

(Volesky was fired from the agency in 2024, which he alleged was politically motivated. He had previously been cited for trespassing while using a Forest Service road to access public land, charges which were later dropped.)  

“The point is, this administration only takes the side of the wealthy, the powerful, the landed gentry, over the average Joe and the people of Montana,” Volesky said. “Montana, hunters and anglers and others in the outdoors should be very wary of this corner crossing executive fiat.”

To legislate or not to legislate

Lawmakers on the EQC discussed whether the Legislature should take up the issue during the 2027 session.

Bills could be brought to strengthen access programs, clarify state versus federal corner crossing laws, or create legal airspace easements that would compensate landowners for allowing corner crossing. 

Two Democratic lawmakers in February wrote an opinion piece that ran in Montana media outlets saying they intend to introduce legislation in 2027 to clarify corner crossing is allowed. 

Rep. Josh Seckinger, of Bozeman, told the Daily Montanan he thinks the issue will be among the important discussions among the natural resources and fish and wildlife committees. 

“I think there will be competing legislation from both ways to try and make it explicitly legal and illegal,” Seckinger said. 

He added that it was nice to see interested parties pursuing multiple avenues to seek clarification on the issue with Thursday’s legal filing. 

 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate approved a resolution Thursday that will prevent lawmakers in that chamber from receiving their paychecks during any government shutdowns that begin after this year’s midterm elections. 

The voice vote on the measure from Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy will not impact members in the House of Representatives since each chamber of Congress is able to set its own rules and procedures. 

The two-page resolution requires the secretary of the Senate to disperse but then hold onto lawmakers paychecks if Congress fails to fund any agency within the federal government on time. 

Kennedy said during a floor speech Wednesday he hoped the resolution would reduce the likelihood of future government shutdowns, following three within the last year. 

“It’s got to stop,” he said. “Shutting down government should not be our default solution to our refusal to work out our issues and our differences.”

Similar to how federal employees receive back pay after a shutdown ends, Kennedy said his resolution would do the same for senators.

“The senator’s salary just would not be available to that senator while we’re in a shutdown but once a shutdown is over you’ll get your money,” he said. 

In order to get the votes to adopt the resolution, Kennedy said he “had to make a few accommodations,” including that it did not apply to the House and wouldn’t take effect before the elections to comply with the 27th Amendment.  

Members of Congress earn $174,000 annually, with those in leadership positions making more. The Constitution allows lawmakers to set their own salaries, which are covered by a permanent, mandatory appropriation. 

Lawmakers and the president, unlike the staff who work for them or those throughout the rest of the federal government, received their salaries during past shutdowns unless they took action to halt their paychecks. 

Several members asked either the House Chief Administrative Officer or the Senate Finance Clerk to hold onto their paychecks during the first shutdown. 

Congress is supposed to pass the dozen annual government funding bills before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1 but hasn’t completed all of its work on time in three decades. 

Lawmakers regularly approve at least one stopgap spending bill to keep federal programs running mostly on autopilot while the House and Senate work to finalize those appropriations bills during the fall, typically sending them to the president sometime in December. 

Policy differences and heightened political tensions, however, led to three shutdowns of varying impact during this fiscal year. 

The first began last October and lasted through Nov. 12 as Democrats tried unsuccessfully to force Republicans to extend enhanced tax credits for people who buy health insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

Lawmakers were able to pass six of the spending bills before a brief partial shutdown took place from Jan. 31 through Feb. 3. The law that ended that funding lapse included five more of the spending bills, leaving Homeland Security as the only department without its annual appropriations bill. 

Democratic demands for constraints on immigration enforcement after federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis led to a third shutdown for many of the agencies within DHS. That lasted from Feb. 14 through April 30 when Congress approved their last funding bill without new spending for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. 

Republicans plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process to approve $72 billion that would cover three years of immigration enforcement activities. GOP lawmakers can do that without Democratic votes in the Senate as long as they stick to the rules.  

Lawmakers in both chambers have also begun work on the next fiscal year’s batch of 12 government funding bills, though it’s highly unlikely they all become law before the end of September. 

That presents the possibility of yet another government shutdown just weeks before voters head to the polls during November’s midterm elections to decide which political party will control Congress for the next two years. 

WASHINGTON — Several Republican U.S. senators left a closed-door lunch with Secret Service Director Sean Curran on Tuesday saying they still have questions about how the agency would spend an additional $1 billion. 

“I’ve asked for a lot more data,” said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine. “If there are needs for new training ranges, for example, that should have been in the president’s budget.”

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, tucked the significant increase into a larger immigration enforcement bill, leading to concerns from some of his GOP colleagues and criticism from Democrats the money will go toward construction of a White House ballroom.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said after the lunch meeting the additional funding is predominantly for regular Secret Service activities, not to support the creation of a new ballroom.  

“The ballroom is being financed privately but the security associated with it represents about 20% of what this request was,” Thune said.

A breakdown of how the new funding would be used by Secret Service, obtained by States Newsroom, showed: 

• $220 million would go to “hardening” the East Wing Modernization Project with additional bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies and filtration systems designed to detect chemical or other contaminants. 
• $180 million would go toward construction of a “long overdue” White House visitor screening facility. 
• $175 million would bolster Secret Service training as well as its training facilities. 
• $175 million would help the agency “secure frequently visited venues facing heightened risk due to their public visibility and static nature.”
• $150 million would go to the branch of the Secret Service that focuses on drones, aircraft incursions, biological threats and “other emerging threats through investments in state-of-the-art technologies.”
• $100 million for “high-profile national events that require significant planning.”

Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott said he wants the Secret Service to share more information. 

“I think the bottom line is, people want to be supportive, right? They want security for the president, but they want more detail,” he said. 

The $1 billion for the Secret Service would be in addition to the $1.17 billion Republicans approved for the agency in their “big, beautiful” law as well as the agency’s annual funding level.

The White House released its budget request in early April, asking lawmakers to approve $3.5 billion for the Secret Service in an annual funding bill, a $36 million increase. 

Senators want more specifics

Utah Republican Sen. John Curtis said he wants “more specifics” from the administration in addition to what lawmakers saw during the lunch. 

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds said he’s asked for more information from the Secret Service about its needs. 

“They’re trying to make it very clear that what they’re talking about are the security improvements that should be included if we’re making major reconstruction within the White House itself,” he said. “So I think as more of the information begins to come out, I think people are going to feel a lot more comfortable with what they’re requesting.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, said he supported the additional Secret Service funding, arguing that security at the White House can be complex.

“I’m fine with that,” he said. “So long as it’s used for security purposes.”

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she wanted to see a detailed breakdown of where the $1 billion would go before committing to supporting the move.

No details from Judiciary chair 

Grassley, who included the line item for “security adjustments and upgrades” for the East Wing Modernization Project in his panel’s immigration enforcement bill, didn’t share details before the lunch about how he landed on the $1 billion figure. 

“It was just kind of a consensus among all of us,” he said, later adding the agreement was among Senate GOP lawmakers, not with the White House.  

Grassley said he didn’t expect to know before the end of the week whether the Secret Service funding would stay in the $72 billion package that is intended to fund immigration activities for the next three years.

The Judiciary Committee bill and one written by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which will be combined in the coming days, would provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement with $38.175 billion, Customs and Border Protection with $26.02 billion, the secretary of Homeland Security’s office with $5 billion and the Department of Justice with $1.457 billion.

GOP leaders in Congress hope to approve the bill next week, sending it to President Donald Trump before the Memorial Day weekend break.

Opportunity for Dems

Senate floor debate on the package includes a marathon amendment voting session that will give Democrats, or even Republicans, the chance to hold up-or-down votes on the additional spending. 

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, said Democrats “will certainly be able to put our colleagues on record” about the additional Secret Service funding. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats will “fight this bill tooth and nail.”

“We’ll offer amendments and we’ll force Republicans to vote again and again on one simple question — are you with working families or are you with Trump’s ballroom,” he said. 

Thune said earlier in the day that Republicans “can’t have a lot of hiccups right now” and still send Trump the package before the president’s June 1 deadline.

The presumption of innocence: It dates back to Roman law.

It’s in the Montana Constitution.

The accused is “presumed to be innocent,” until proven guilty. Black and white, found in Montana Code Annotated §46-16-204 (2025) and Article II, Section 17, of the Montana Constitution.

It is a fundamental principle of criminal law.  The bedrock of our criminal “justice” system.  (Quotes intentional.)

Everyone is presumed innocent.  It looks great on paper.

In practice, it is more of a decorative, aspirational principle.

Today?  The presumption of innocence wears a price tag.

We have a wealth-based system.

The rich get bail. They can pay their way out of jail.

The unrich?   Well, they get bars.  They are justice orphans.

Most people have less than three months’ rent saved.

Figure hundreds of dollars an hour for a lawyer.  Now, figure the cost of bail, even modest bail.

Only the rich can afford it.  Everyone else gets caged.

Not just the poor. Everyone who is unrich.

It isn’t right, but it is a reality for many.

It’s called “pretrial detention.” It’s what happens when someone can’t make bail.

They lose their job.  They can’t pay the mortgage or rent.  They struggle to meet with a lawyer. Marriages craters. Cars gets repossessed. Custody of kids lost.

Pretrial detention creates pressure to accept a plea bargain – even for the innocent.  When someone is held in pretrial detention, they are more likely to be found guilty.  It contributes to overcrowding. And, get this: It also makes us less safe. Data shows that pretrial detention is linked to future crimes and recidivism.

The presumption of innocence isn’t looking so good in reality.

Bail –  not to punish.  It’s intended to make sure the accused shows up for trial and to protect the public.  Tell me: How does a $1,000  or a $10,000 bail make an unrich person less dangerous?  It doesn’t. It is a myth.

Get this: The U. S. Commission on Civil Rights admitted that the data does not prove that pretrial detention makes us safer.  So, why are we doing this?

Here are some tough facts, courtesy of our government.

Between 1970 and 2015, the number of people jailed before trial increased 433%.  That’s not a typo.  More than 60% have no bail money. So, they “vacation” in the county detention center, at taxpayer expense.

Often — far too often — people who pose little or no risk, sit in jail because they can’t afford bail. America arrests more than 10.5 million people each year. Ponder that. That’s ten Montanas.  Every year.  Eighty-three percent of the arrests are for low-level crimes. Violent offenders?  Only 5%.

If rich people were caged at the same rates as the unrich, we would have had reform a long time ago.  Instead, we have a system of persistent injustice. Every day, more than 600,000 people, never convicted, sit in jail,  presumed innocent, waiting for trial. That should disturb all of us.

Everyone is presumed innocent.  Sure.

Seeing your neighbor in a prison jumpsuit, handcuffed, and shackled on the evening news really looks like presumed innocent.  Presumed innocent on paper, but not in practice.  It corrodes our values.

Yellowstone County is an example: The county frequently jails more than 600 a day. More than half are there for one simple reason: No money for bail.  One poor soul only needed to $100 to get out.  Please go talk to him about how he is “presumed innocent.”  I dare you.  Friends, this is not the American dream.

We are expanding jails and raising taxes like we have run out of other ideas.   And, 95% of the need is because we are jailing more people who have not been convicted.

It’s insane.  Many could get out of jail for $1,000 or less.

So what do we do?  We lock them up at a cost of roughly $150 a day to taxpayers.

That is stupid with gusto. We have other options.

Keeping people out of jail before their trials should be the standard rule.  Exceptions for those who are a genuine flight risk and those who are a threat.  But those are a small minority of those jailed.

Cash bail is a problem.  It proves our hypocrisy and undermines the presumption of innocence.  It manufactures poverty by contributing to homelessness, unemployment, divorce, custody disputes, and much more.  If you are unrich, there is little “justice” in our system and lots of jail time.

We should end cash bail and transition to a more risk-based assessment.  Pretrial detention should be based upon risk, not wealth.

There are other options: Release restrictions, supervision, monitoring, drug/alcohol testing, referrals for treatment, travel restrictions, home confinement, curfews, restrictions on leaving the city or county, surrender passport, prohibit contact with witnesses and victims, substance abuse treatment, mental health counseling, anger management, and others.

Presumed innocent.  It shouldn’t just be in our Constitution.  It needs to be a reality.  Not just aspirational.  Presumed innocence should be lived, practiced and proven.

We must stop swallowing injustice.

NorthWestern Energy officials have said data centers aren’t relevant to the utility’s proposed merger with Black Hills Corp — but data centers are part of their discussions with investors and a rationale for a merger.

Data centers have been controversial in Montana, with proponents pushing for potential economic development benefits, such as jobs, and opponents raising concerns about higher rates and impacts on water.

In August 2025, NorthWestern and Black Hills announced the proposed $15.4 billion merger, and a hearing with the Montana Public Service Commission is taking place this week.

Officials from NorthWestern have said data centers are not a relevant part of the merger, but Wednesday, the second day of the hearing, a lawyer quizzing the CEO showed the “large load customers” are a factor given statements in an earlier investors call and recent financial report.

Wednesday, NorthWestern CEO Brian Bird took the stand, and under questioning from lawyer Monica Tranel, Bird agreed he had discussed data centers as an opportunity for NorthWestern with the possible merger.

But Bird said the merger offers other opportunities for growth too, not just from data centers, but also from transmission and generation, and he said the benefits for shareholders will, over time, accrue to customers as well — but the merger needs to take place.

“There ultimately could be reduced costs to customers,” Bird said.

Tranel, however, also asked if NorthWestern had a study that outlined the rate impacts of the merger on residential customers, “positive or negative,” and NorthWestern CFO Crystal Lail said it did not have one.

However, utility officials did have an estimate the merger would increase profits for shareholders — in a call with investors, they estimated the earnings per share would go from 4-6% to 5-7%.

In separate filings with the Public Service Commission, NorthWestern has blacked out most of the information about data centers, and at the hearing, the utility’s lawyer objected to questions about them — including one about how they might be used to help residential customers.

Commissioner Randy Pinocci said NorthWestern has had significant success in one community in particular, Winifred, and helped lower rates there and improve operations.

But he said he didn’t believe it could do the same with the merger, partly because NorthWestern already delivered “top drawer” performance.

“When you do this merger, I don’t think we’re going to see any improvements,” Pinocci said.

Bird, though, said the companies could learn from each other, and in doing so, become even more efficient; save money, such as by paying just one CEO instead of two; and reduce inevitable cost increases.

“We’re going to be able to provide the same great service,” Bird said. “I believe we’re going to be able to provide it at a lower cost than we would otherwise on a standalone basis.”

But Pinocci also said he had many calls about data centers, and he didn’t want to “beat a dead horse,” but he also had an idea to address the concern that rates for residential customers would go up as a result.

“Why don’t we charge them (data centers) a higher rate, and that higher rate offsets the rate to the homeowner? Is that a possibility?” Pinocci said.

NorthWestern lawyer Sarah Norcott, however, objected to the question based on “relevance to this merger docket.” PSC Vice President Jennifer Fielder, leading the hearing, agreed the discussion would be more appropriate in a separate docket, but not the merger.

A similar exchange took place when Tranel, representing 350 Montana and the Montana Farmers Union, asked Bird if NorthWestern intended to use some of its newly acquired shares at the coal fired plant in Colstrip to serve data centers in the state.

“That is a possibility,” Bird said.

Tranel tried to follow up and ask if NorthWestern had discussed the possibility with Quantica Infrastructure, which has a project outside Billings, but the utility’s lawyer objected to that question, too.

Some of the documents in the merger aren’t available to the public because they’re filed under protective orders, to shield information the companies consider competitive, for example. Wednesday, part of the hearing about information considered private took place out of public view.

NorthWestern earlier said it was in talks with at least 11 entities about data center development.  In its first quarter earnings report for 2026, it said three agreements are signed, including with Quantica, which is increasing demand from roughly 500 megawatts to 1.1 gigawatts.

“We continue to see quite a bit of demand,” said the report from NorthWestern, posted on Investing.com. “We actually increased our data center request queue from six to eight since the last time you’ve seen this page.”

NorthWestern officials also have said they expect the Montana Public Service Commission will approve the merger, and they will close on the deal later in 2026. Already, four settlement agreements are approved.

In questions to Bird, Tranel asked if NorthWestern would agree, as a condition of the merger, to freeze customer rates for 10 years, but Bird said no.

Commissioner Annie Bukacek wanted to know more about executive compensation, and Bird confirmed he wouldn’t earn a $16 million salary as part of the merger; rather, he would earn $16 million if the merger goes through and he doesn’t have a job, a “golden parachute.”

Bukacek also wanted to confirm the money for those golden parachutes wouldn’t be paid by customer rates, and Bird agreed that was the case.

The merger also requires approval from regulators in Nebraska and South Dakota. The hearing in Montana will resume 8:30 a.m. Thursday.

Court documents released after a recent order from a district court judge add details to the Aug. 1, 2025 shooting of four people in Anaconda.

Michael Paul Brown is alleged to have entered the Owl Bar in Anaconda that day and killed Daniel Baillie, Nancy Kelley, David Leach and Tony Palm.

A massive manhunt ensued and Brown was apprehended a week later. 

Documents in the case were sealed in late August 2025 and were released on May 8, 2026, after a coalition of media organizations filed to unseal the documents. The Daily Montanan, Montana Free Press, The Montana Newspaper Association, Montana Broadcasters Association, Lee Enterprises, Inc. and the Montana Freedom of Information Coalition filed to enter the case in a limited capacity and were denied by an Anaconda Deer Lodge County district judge.

The coalition appealed to the Supreme Court, which found the press had been denied a chance to participate in the arguments about whether to seal the records.

An evidentiary hearing, where the coalition would have argued why unsealing the documents was in the public’s interest, was eventually scheduled after the state Supreme Court handed down its decision. State lawyers and attorneys for Brown changed course and the records were released.

Brown’s mental health evaluation remains sealed.

As part of a tranche of case documents released, one document, filed by the state on Sept. 2, 2025 in support of its charges, added significant narrative detail to the case.

Brown, documents say, “endorsed several reasons that the events occurred” including Brown believing he was the rightful owner of the bar and that a jukebox in the bar was “digitally brainwashing” him.

Brown lived next door to the bar.

At 10:37 a.m., on Aug. 1, Anaconda Deer Lodge County law enforcement went to a report of shots fired at the bar. Officers discovered four bodies and called for medical and fire teams, and began to review surveillance footage from the bar.

Brown allegedly initially entered the bar with a bucket and a pizza box, according to the video footage and evidence. The bucket was later identified as “containing a liquid believed to be lighter fluid, matches, spray paint cans, and small green Coleman style propane canisters.”

Court documents state Brown can then be seen lighting the pizza box on fire and putting it on top of the bucket. A bar employee began to stomp on the pizza box in an effort to put the fire out.

Brown then is alleged to have come back moments later with a rifle and shot four people in the bar. Officers found 7.62 x 39 casings, two fired bullets and a rifle cleaning rod at the scene. An SKS rifle was later recovered from Brown’s residence, which court documents say match a bullet recovered from the scene.

Brown then walked out of the bar with the rifle until he was out of the camera frame, court documents say.

Anaconda-Deer Lodge County law enforcement, along with agents from surrounding agencies and state agencies began to descend on the scene and set up a one-block perimeter around the Owl Bar and Brown’s residence, documents say. 

It is not clear how many law enforcement officers were on scene, who was in command, or if that command changed. The Montana Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment and Anaconda Deer Lodge Attorney Morgan Smith said the office does not comment on active investigations.

Brown was spotted outside the perimeter as he allegedly stole a truck while the driver had stopped nearby to drop off a friend’s cell phone. The driver approached law enforcement on the phone with the truck’s owner, and dispatch was able to confirm this was the vehicle that had been stolen.

“Officers observed the driver of the vehicle to match the description of Michael Brown, and a pursuit ensued,” Court documents say. “Officers from a number of different agencies engaged in the pursuit as nearly everyone on scene at the Owl Bar left to chase the white pickup.”

Law enforcement pursued the truck down East Third Street, Park Street and then eventually down Stumptown Road.

“Officers in dozens of vehicles traveled with lights and sirens through Anaconda,” court documents say.

An Anaconda Deer Lodge County officer and a state Department of Criminal Investigations agent met the vehicle as it turned off Stumptown Road into an unmarked trailhead that is informally referred to as the “sled hill,” court documents say.

Officers knew the road was a dead end and that it would become unusable for vehicle traffic. As the two law enforcement officers neared the end of vehicle access, they took a defensive position in case Brown came back at them, documents say.

“When officers realized that the vehicle had traveled into a rough terrain and had not come back down the trailhead, it was determined that officers would wait for backup before approaching the suspect vehicle,” court documents say. “Officers were unaware if Mr. Brown was armed at this time.”

Brown served in the U.S. Army from Jan. 2001 to May 2005 as part of an armored vehicle crew. He was deployed to Iraq and later was in the Montana National Guard from April 2006 to March 2009.

Court documents make little reference to the manhunt, simply saying it “involved officers from more than thirty-five different local, state and federal agencies.”

A list of all agencies involved is unclear, but did include state DCI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshal’s Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Brown, following his capture, was advised of his rights and consented to a recorded interview with law enforcement.

“Mr. Brown acknowledged personally knowing all four individuals and commented that he ‘really liked them,’” court documents state.

This story was first published on May 6, 2026 in WyoFile. 

With low-elevation trails free of snow and temperatures in the mid-50s, tourists prepared to take advantage of Grand Teton National Park when the Teton Park Road gate lifted Friday.

By the afternoon, motorists were erratically pulling off the road to park on the shoulder with parking lots already full. Out-of-state plates dominated the Jenny Lake parking area, where families descended to the lakeshore to pose for photos. The Jackson Hole News&Guide spoke with a dozen groups about their experience at park entrance stations. Four had purchased passes online, four bought passes at another park and four paid at Grand Teton’s gate.

“It was a two-minute ordeal,” said Benjamin Smith, who bought his pass at Badlands National Park while moving to Victor, Idaho. “It wasn’t a big deal.”

But that hasn’t been the case for all visitors, particularly foreign travelers and tour groups, after the Trump administration instituted new fees this year for international visitors. The change was part of a “modernization” effort that created new digital park passes that can be purchased at Recreation.gov.

The National Park Service first unveiled in November a new $100 per-person surcharge for foreign visitors, aged 16 and up, at the nation’s 11 most-visited parks, including Grand Teton and Yellowstone. Entrance to both parks for a week costs $35. For a car with four foreign visitors, the same package could now cost $435.

However, that group could also buy an annual “America the Beautiful” pass, which is good for visiting all national parks and other federal recreational areas for one year. Previously, that pass cost $80 for everyone, including visitors who are not U.S. citizens. Now, it costs $250 for foreign visitors, more than a three-fold increase, but less than the per-person surcharge, in some cases.

“That was really sticker shock,” said Lisa Simon, CEO and executive director of the International Inbound Travel Association. “It was a huge jump in price.”

The international surcharge also applies to Acadia, Bryce Canyon, Everglades, Glacier, Grand Canyon, Rocky Mountain, Sequoia and Kings Canyon, Yosemite and Zion.

Grand Teton sold 253  “America the Beautiful” passes to foreign visitors from January 1 through May 4, generating over $60,000 in revenue, according to park figures provided to the News&Guide. The park also sold 102  per-person passes to foreign visitors, bringing in over $10,000.

Michael Galkien and Maria Pavlova, a Russian couple visiting Grand Teton, purchased their pass online. They were worried when they heard the news about the $100 surcharge, but were sanguine about the $250 annual pass.

“The national parks are our goals,” Pavlova said. “We don’t like cities, we enjoy parks. They’re amazing, wonderful places, so it’s unavoidable.”

National park vacations still make financial sense to the couple and their friends as long as they visit multiple parks in one trip, said Galkien, who was more focused on the park’s four-legged residents than the surcharge.

“Where are the bears?” he asked.

More money for national parks parks

Yellowstone and Grand Teton superintendents support the foreign visitor fee increases, they said Monday while attending the Cody Country Chamber of Commerce’s 74th Annual National Parks Day Luncheon.

Yellowstone’s Cam Sholly and Grand Teton’s Chip Jenkins met with Cody-area community members and business leaders at the lunch, recapping 2025 and providing park updates.

“This is something that should have happened a long time ago, so I really support the decision,” Sholly told the Cody Enterprise, adding that he expects the impact of the revenue collected from higher fees to be “substantial” for Yellowstone’s infrastructure. Twenty percent of the park’s visitors are foreign, Sholly said, and the park retains 80% of entrance fees, which it uses for infrastructure projects, staffing and other expenses.

“We’re going to need this year, maybe another couple of years to see where that levels off, but I do think it’s going to be a significant help to us,” Sholly said.

Jenkins said Grand Teton uses visitor fees similarly, although that park only receives 10% foreign visitation on average. Of the $9 million historically generated by park fees, the park retains “about $6 million,” Jenkins said.

“I think you should actually view it in the context of all entrance fees, not just foreign visitor fees,” he added. “[Fees] play a really important role for us in terms of being able to address the maintenance backlog as well as help with operational expenses.”

The majority of park funding, Jenkins noted, comes “from Congress in terms of appropriated dollars,” but is augmented by entrance fees.

Both Sholly and Jenkins confirmed the 11 national parks affected by the policy change operate under a standardized system.

“We work under direction from Washington,” Sholly said. “All of the parks that are collecting the international fee will follow the same rules.”

Those parks, Jenkins added, have been in communication during the rollout and  share information with each other.

“Because there are parks like Grand Canyon that get much heavier visitation in the winter, much heavier visitation from foreign nationals, the range of questions, the range of situations, they’re experiencing it first,” he said. “We get to use that in our training for our entrance gate rangers.”

Rangers, Jenkins said, have been instructed to ask one of two questions: “Is everybody in the car a U.S. citizen?” or “Is there anybody in the vehicle that is a foreign national?”

Both superintendents reported that the fee rollout in their parks was going well with Sholly saying, “So far, so good,” and Jenkins adding the caveat that, “It’s the time of year where our visitation is pretty low.”

However, those low visitor numbers, Jenkins said, have enabled Grand Teton to actively “work out the bugs” reported by southern parks that have seen greater traffic through the winter months.

The roll out by the Trump administration

The first indication of change came in President Donald Trump’s executive order “Making America Beautiful Again by Improving Our National Parks.”

The July order directed Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to develop “a strategy to increase revenue and improve the recreational experience at national parks by appropriately increasing entrance fees and recreation pass fees for nonresidents in areas of the National Park System that charge entrance fees.”

Simon, the International Inbound Travel Association director, represents tour operators who work with international tours, travel agents and other types of travel buyers to bring customers to the United States. Her association didn’t quibble with Trump’s July order because they didn’t know whether the fee hike would be substantial.

“We could have been fighting from the day we got the executive order,” Simon said. “But if it had been $5, that would have been silly.”

The sticker shock came in November when the National Park Service announced detailed pricing. Parks had five weeks to implement the changes with the policy going into effect on Jan. 1.

“The industry, including our organization specifically, has had a great relationship with the National Park Service for decades,” Simon said. “They have typically given us 18 months notice, so that tour operators can actually build fee increases into their prices.”

Park staff have also been confused, she said. Tour operators were told that rangers likely wouldn’t board buses at entrances to check IDs.

“But that has happened,” Simon told WyoFile. “They’ve also pulled buses over and made all of the customers get off. People go buy their passes and then get back on the bus.”

In February, the National Parks Conservation Association called for pausing the increased fees, citing what the group saw as problems implementing the new rules.

‘Economics of Awe’

The Bozeman-based Property and Environment Research Center has long championed a foreign visitor’s fee. A 2023 white paper authored by Tate Watkins, director of publications and a research fellow for the center, argued: “If each international visitor to a U.S. national park paid a $25 surcharge, it could raise an estimated $330 million, nearly doubling total recreation fee revenue for the park system.”

Since the mid-2010s, Watkins noted, park visitation numbers have swelled above 300 million visitors annually — nearly the size of the entire U.S. population.

In a separate 2025 paper, “The Economics of Awe,” co-authored by three of the center’s research fellows — Watkins, Sara Sutherland, and University of Wyoming economist Stephen Newbold — found visitation to Yellowstone was “highly inelastic” in relation to entrance fees. That means consumer behavior and, consequently, visitation are unlikely to change because of a price hike for international travelers.

Of the 15% of Yellowstone visitors traveling from overseas, just 0.03% would reconsider or change travel plans, according to the researchers.

“A surcharge of $100 on international visitors would be estimated to generate $55.2 million in new revenue, enough to cover the entire park’s annual routine maintenance costs ($43 million), demolish the abandoned wastewater system at Old Faithful ($6 million), and make site improvements at Midway Geyser Basin ($5 million),” the authors wrote.

Who eats the cost?

Many tour group passengers had already paid admission for parks before the new fees rolled out. Responsibility for the fees fell on tour operators.

In European countries and Brazil, stiff consumer protection laws prohibit tacking on additional fees after purchase without allowing for cancellations, Simon said. Tour operators don’t want to risk their reputations or trigger cancellations, she said.

“They’re going to eat the charges,” Simon said.

Tour operators in national parks already pay a commercial entrance fee for vehicles based on their size. The average cost is $300 for a full-size motor coach, she said, noting she wasn’t sure of the exact rates for Yellowstone and Grand Teton. The new surcharge comes on top of the commercial vehicle fee.

Tour operators can’t purchase the annual America the Beautiful passes for their customers as the current system does not allow bulk, advance purchases. That’s causing problems for operators, though Simon said the Park Service is working on a solution ahead of Memorial Day. For locations that charge per-person rates, the service has said up to four people in a traveling party can be covered by the annual pass. But what defines a “traveling party” keeps changing, Simon said.

“First of all, they keep changing the rules in a very short period of implementation and secondly, a group tour, by nature and definition, is the traveling party,” she said.

Modernizing national park passes

Of four parties interviewed by the News&Guide that purchased passes in Grand Teton, two reported having to show ID to enter the park.

Jack Cody, a Vermonter visiting with his two sons, was a member of one of those parties. An employee manning the gate asked the family if they were all residents of the United States.

Cody was more upset by the updated artwork on the pass. Along with the non-resident fees and digital passes, the “modernization effort” also added President Donald Trump’s visage to park passes.

“It’s a travesty that Trump’s face is on it,” Cody said.

WASHINGTON — Officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Wednesday the risk of a member of the general public contracting hantavirus remains low despite several passengers on a cruise ship becoming infected with the disease. 

Dr. Brendan Jackson, an epidemiologist and the agency’s team lead in Nebraska, said Americans who were on the MV Hondius cruise ship after others were diagnosed with the illness were flown to the National Quarantine Center at the University of Nebraska.

Healthcare providers at the site have been talking with each passenger about whether they may have been exposed to any of the people with confirmed cases. They’re also monitoring the Americans for fevers or other symptoms. 

“This particular virus has a long incubation period, so the monitoring period is 42 days,” Jackson said. “And the 42 days started with the departure of the ship, so May 11 was day one.” 

Any cruise ship passengers who traveled on commercial flights, leading to possible exposures for others on those planes, left the ship before the infections were diagnosed, he said.  

“The passengers that are being monitored who were on shared flights were separate from the passengers who were on the ship at the time the outbreak was detected. So they had actually left the ship before the outbreak was detected,” Jackson said. 

“All the passengers that were on the ship after that detection phase were transported just several days ago on a private plane directly from the Canary Islands to here in Omaha, Nebraska,” he added. 

CDC officials are working with local and state public health officials to ensure anyone who may have been exposed outside of the cruise ship isolates at home and monitors themselves for symptoms. 

The officials on the call declined to say how many people are being monitored for possible exposure or where they are located in the country, citing privacy concerns.

They also declined to talk about the two cruise ship passengers taken to Emory University Hospital’s Serious Communicable Diseases Unit in Georgia. 

Dr. David Fitter, incident manager for the agency’s hantavirus response, said that unlike the coronavirus pandemic that spread around the world in 2020, hantavirus is not new to public health officials. 

“At this moment I want to emphasize that the risk to the general public is low,” he said. 

In addition to monitoring Americans who were on the cruise ship and anyone they may have come into contact with, CDC officials have been talking frequently with lawmakers.

“We’ve held two Hill briefings and have just completed a call with the governors from the states of repatriated Americans,” Fitter said. “We’ve also held daily calls with state health officials. 

“Our role now is to continue our conversations with each passenger about their potential exposure and work with partners to ensure appropriate monitoring.”

CDC officials have encouraged the people at the Nebraska facility to stay there throughout the quarantine period but there are not currently any state or federal quarantine orders in place.

Just more than a year ago, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York,  visited Missoula as part of the Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Fighting Oligarchy” tour. The two progressive lawmakers made dozens of stops around the country, and in Missoula brought some 9,000 Montanans to the Adams Center to hear their message.

Next week, Ocasio-Cortez, known colloquially as “AOC,” will be back in Missoula, this time stumping on the campaign trail for U.S. House hopeful Sam Forstag, a union leader and smokejumper who had a speaking slot at the “Fighting Oligarchy” tour last year.

Forstag, one of four Democrats seeking the nomination for Montana’s western district, has earned endorsements from both AOC and Sanders, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

He has also positioned himself as a labor-focused candidate, with endorsements from state and national union organizations, including Montana AFL-CIO and the Montana Federation of Public Employees.

The rally next week will also feature Sara Nelson president of the AFA-CWA, which represents flight attendants and labor leaders from across Montana, according to an announcement from the campaign.

The rally will take place on Friday, May 22 at the Wilma Theater in Missoula, with doors opening at 5 p.m.

 

WASHINGTON — The seventh effort to stop President Donald Trump’s military campaign in Iran until he obtains congressional approval failed Wednesday in the U.S. Senate.

The vote marked the first test for Senate Republicans’ support for a War Powers Resolution after the expiration of the statute’s 60-day period granted to the president for military operations.

The vote failed 49-51, though notably Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, flipped for the first time to support limiting Trump’s unfettered war on Iran. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, for a second time since April 30, voted in favor.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., voted yes, and Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., opposed the measure, as they both have done on previous votes.

Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., did not vote.

House lawmakers are expected to take up a similar War Powers Resolution as soon as Thursday.

The war, which Trump launched on Feb. 28 in conjunction with Israel, cost the lives of 13 American service members. The latest Pentagon figures reveal 404 service members were injured during Operation Epic Fury, the administration’s name for the conflict.

Ceasefire on ‘life support’

Despite a recent exchange of fire between Iran and the U.S. in the Strait of Hormuz, the administration maintains the operation is over, and claimed a 60-day clock on hostilities paused when the two countries agreed to a ceasefire in April. 

However, Trump told reporters Monday that any ceasefire between the two nations was on “massive life support.”

Iranian leaders have contested the existence of a ceasefire because of an ongoing U.S. Naval blockade on Iran’s ports.

Pentagon officials testified in both chambers of Congress Tuesday that the war to date has cost $29 billion, without accounting for Iran’s drone and missile damage to U.S. military installations in the region.

Hostilities ongoing, Dem says

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., who sponsored the resolution, said Wednesday morning the Iran war has turned out to be “nothing like” the victory Trump promised.

“Both sides are still engaged in hostilities. And so I don’t accept that the 60-day clock is suspended,” Merkley said.

When asked Wednesday morning whether Republicans were whipping votes ahead of the War Powers Resolution, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said that lawmakers should support the president while he’s overseas conducting high-stakes meetings with Chinese officials, including China’s leader Xi Jinping.

“He’s negotiating with the Chinese on a whole range of issues, some of which bear on national security, and I think it would be best if everybody hung together and supported the president,” Thune, R-S.D., said. “But we’ll see. … People have their own minds about some of these issues.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Kevin Warsh will officially take the lead at the Federal Reserve after U.S. senators voted Wednesday to confirm the economist and former central bank governor to replace Chair Jerome Powell.

Senators approved Warsh 54-45 nearly along party lines. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., broke ranks with his party to join Republicans in support of Warsh’s nomination. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., did not vote.

Warsh, of Florida, takes the helm after President Donald Trump spent most of his second term haranguing and threatening to fire Powell if he did not lower interest rates.

Trump is also tangled in litigation over his firing last summer of Fed Governor Lisa Cook. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing whether Trump’s dismissal of Cook exceeded his presidential authority.

Dropped investigation

Trump’s ire for Powell escalated into a Department of Justice investigation in January that even angered some in Trump’s own party.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who sits on the narrowly divided Senate Committee on Banking, House and Urban Affairs, withheld his support for Warsh’s nomination until the administration dropped its probe into Powell’s handling of a multiyear renovation of the Fed’s Washington, D.C., headquarters.

The U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia scrapped the investigation on April 24, but said the Fed’s inspector general would continue to examine cost overruns. The administration had accused Powell of lying to Congress about the price of renovations.

A federal judge dismissed DOJ’s criminal subpoenas into the Fed and Powell in March, citing in his order “abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair.”

Powell’s term as chair expires Friday. He will stay on as a sitting governor on the central bank’s board.

Democratic critique 

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., criticized Warsh on the Senate floor ahead of Wednesday’s vote. Van Hollen said Warsh has done a “180-degree flip” on inflation since his time of arguing for higher interest rates as a Fed board governor during the 2008 financial crisis. The Maryland senator said Warsh is now a “super dove on interest rates.”

“Markets need confidence that monetary policy decisions are being made on the basis of economic evidence, not on the basis of political pressure or convenience,” Van Hollen said.

“That is especially important now, as prices are rising too fast and President Trump is still demanding a big cut in interest rates,” he added.

Inflation data released Tuesday showed a 3.8% increase year over year, the highest jump since 2023.

The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday suggested to a federal appeals court that upholding a lower court decision blocking the Trump administration’s access to sensitive voter data would weaken its ability to investigate racial discrimination in voting.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held oral arguments on whether to reverse a district court judge’s opinion that Michigan doesn’t have to provide the Justice Department with its unredacted voter list that contains dates of birth, driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers. 

At the core of the case is how federal courts should interpret the 1960 Civil Rights Act, which grants the U.S. attorney general broad access to documents and records that “come into the possession” of election officials. Congress passed the law to empower investigations into voting discrimination against Black citizens. 

A lawyer for the Trump administration on Wednesday sought to discredit the logic behind the district court judge’s decision. He said the decision would have hampered 1960s era investigations into discrimination against Black voters if it had been in place at that time. An assistant Michigan attorney general called that a major misreading of the law.

The judges did not meaningfully suggest which argument they found persuasive.

The Justice Department has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia over their refusal to turn over the data. At least 15 conservative states have voluntarily provided the information, which the Trump administration plans to feed into a Department of Homeland Security computer program to identify potential noncitizen voters.

Democrats and voting rights advocates have raised privacy concerns about the Trump administration’s plans for the data. They also say Homeland Security has wrongly flagged voters as potential noncitizens and that the administration is seeking to build a national voter list.

The Justice Department’s courtroom argument on Wednesday came amid the backdrop of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision two weeks ago to severely weaken the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was intended to stamp out discriminatory voting laws in the South. Trump has cheered the ruling and Republican state lawmakers in Southern states are rushing to draw new congressional maps that could oust Black Democrats.

Debate over Civil Rights Act

U.S District Court Judge Hala Jarbou, an appointee of President Donald Trump, in February ruled that the Justice Department isn’t entitled to voters’ data. Michigan’s voter registration database is a record created by state officials, not a document that comes into their possession, she reasoned.

On Wednesday, Justice Department attorney David Goldman told a panel of three appellate judges that Jarbou had created a “carveout” in the Civil Rights Act not rooted in the law. 

“It carves a hole in the attorney general’s investigative authority so gaping that the most blatant civil rights violations of the 1960s could have marched right through it,” Goldman said.

Michigan Assistant Attorney General Heather Meingast, representing Michigan Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, told the judges that the Justice Department’s demand is unprecedented and unsupported by federal law. 

The state’s voter registration database includes voter information but isn’t a document under the Civil Rights Act, Meingast argued. The database is dynamic, she said, constantly changing as voters are added and removed.

“It doesn’t seem to meet the test of what the (Civil Rights Act) was talking about in the 60s,” Meingast said. “And the purpose was voters turning in their documents, their applications, their poll taxes.”

Judges don’t tip hand

The case is being heard by Senior Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr., a Clinton appointee; Judge Andre B. Mathis, a Biden appointee; and Judge John B. Nalbandian, a Trump appointee.

Much of the judges’ questions centered on what it means for records to “come into the possession” of election officials. The judges posed skeptical questions to both sides, leaving it unclear who will prevail.

One judge likened the voter database to baking a cake, an image used in a brief filed by voters and civic groups in the case. Anyone baking a cake wouldn’t say they “came into possession” of a cake, the judge said.

“What about common sense?” the judge said.

The 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, provided an audio-only livestream of the arguments and the judges didn’t identify themselves when speaking. Courthouse News Service reported the judge who made the remark was Nalbandian.

The oral arguments lasted about 40 minutes. The three-judge panel gave no deadline for issuing an opinion.

Other cases

In the Justice Department’s voter data lawsuits, six district court judges have ruled against the Trump administration — in Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Oregon and Rhode Island, in addition to Michigan. The Michigan case is the first to reach oral argument before an appellate court. Oral arguments are set for next week in appeals of the DOJ’s losses in California and Oregon.

The appellate cases mark the next stage of the Justice Department’s year-long campaign for state voter data. DOJ attorneys have urged appeals courts to move quickly, arguing that the security of the November midterm elections is at stake.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department released an opinion from its Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice to executive branch agencies, that supports the DOJ’s efforts to obtain state voter data. DOJ attorneys immediately filed the opinion in the Michigan appeal in a last-minute bid to bolster their case before oral arguments.

“It’s memorializing advice that was given in early to mid-September,” Goldman said — the same time period when the Justice Department began suing states for refusing to turn over voter data.

Aria Branch, an attorney at the Elias Law Group representing voters and a civic group in the case, noted that six courts have already ruled against the Justice Department. 

“DOJ’s attempt to exploit the Civil Rights Act for its current dragnet simply resembles trying to fit a square peg into a round hole,” Branch told the judges. “It simply doesn’t work.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday pressed for increased funding for the Secret Service, arguing most of the money Senate Republicans included for the agency in their immigration enforcement bill is for security needs, not building a new ballroom at the White House. 

But the Louisiana Republican added during a morning press conference he didn’t want to “prejudge” the $72 billion package before the Senate approves a final version this month and sends it to the House. 

“I don’t have the pen in the Senate. They’re writing the bill,” he said. “We’ll see what we get.”

Johnson noted there are several more steps the legislation must go through in the Senate, including a review by the parliamentarian to make sure all of the provisions fit within the strict rules of the reconciliation process, committee debate and a marathon amendment voting session on the floor. 

Johnson said that President Donald Trump “is excited about building a ballroom with private funding,” though that project comes with some additional needs that will likely require taxpayer dollars.  

“The Secret Service says that as we enhance the White House grounds and the modernization there that obviously we have to think differently about security,” he said. “We live in a very dangerous time and there are new and increasing threats that we have never faced before. And so Congress has a role in funding that and we’ll have to see how it all works out.”

‘Urgent request’

Johnson asserted the bill Senate Republicans released last week “very specifically defined” how the Secret Service could use the additional funding.  

The legislation would provide $1 billion that would be available until Sept. 30, 2029 for “security adjustments and upgrades … to support enhancements by the United States Secret Service relating to the East Wing Modernization Project.”

The bill would limit the Secret Service from using any of the funding “for non-security elements.” 

Johnson said GOP lawmakers added the funding to the immigration enforcement spending bill after the Secret Service “put in an urgent request for additional security measures.”

“We’ve needed some of these security measures for a long time,” he said. “And that’s what this is all about.”

Congress provided the Secret Service with $3.25 billion in the annual funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security that lawmakers passed in late April.  

Republicans approved an additional $1.17 billion for the Secret Service in their “big, beautiful” law that the agency can use through September 2029 for personnel, training, technology as well as performance, retention and signing bonuses. 

Normally, the White House budget office would publicly send Congress a supplemental spending request, asking lawmakers to approve the additional money. That would then be vetted by the Appropriations Committees, though that didn’t happen in this case. 

The Trump administration also could have included a boost in funding to the budget request officials sent Congress in early April that asked members to approve $3.5 billion for the Secret Service in the annual funding bill for the agency that’s due by the end of September.  

Funding breakdown

Secret Service Director Sean Curran gave Republican senators more details about how the agency plans to use the additional funding during a closed-door lunch this week, though the bill wouldn’t actually require the agency to spend the money as outlined. 

A breakdown obtained by States Newsroom showed: 

• $220 million would go to “hardening” the East Wing Modernization Project with additional bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies and filtration systems designed to detect chemical or other contaminants. 
• $180 million would go toward construction of a “long overdue” White House visitor screening facility. 
• $175 million would bolster Secret Service training as well as its training facilities. 
• $175 million would help the agency “secure frequently visited venues facing heightened risk due to their public visibility and static nature.”
• $150 million would go to the branch of the Secret Service that focuses on drones, aircraft incursions, biological threats and “other emerging threats through investments in state-of-the-art technologies.”
• $100 million for “high-profile national events that require significant planning.”

Republican senators said after that meeting they wanted more information from the Secret Service on exactly how the agency would spend the additional funding before they vote on the package. 

Thune predicts passage next week

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Wednesday morning most GOP senators will ultimately support the additional funding for the Secret Service “that’s needed to enable them to do their jobs.” 

“Obviously there are security implications related to the modernization of the East Wing. And that represents, I think, of the total request that Secret Service made, about 20%,” he said. “The balance of it, I think, are things that they’ve been putting off for a long time, but need to be done, especially in a modern threat environment where you’ve had, you know, now, three assassination attempts in the last two years.”

Thune said his “aspirational timeline” is to have committees debate their bills early next week, followed by floor action on the full package later in the week.  

“It can always be affected by other factors,” he said. “But I think at least right now, that’s the goal.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a floor speech that Trump’s focus on building a “gilded ballroom” shows the president “is living in the theater of the absurd.”

Schumer said Americans don’t want to see government leaders focused on the ballroom project when inflation, food costs and gasoline prices have all increased. 

“I would say Trump has completely lost touch with the American people, but that would assume that Trump was ever in touch with the American people to begin with,” he said. “And on this issue he sure as heck isn’t.”

WASHINGTON — Long-time federal immigration official David Venturella will lead U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency spearheading President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign, according to a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson.

Venturella will replace outgoing ICE acting Director Todd Lyons, who last month announced he would leave his position by May 31, the DHS official told States Newsroom on Wednesday. Venturella will also take on the role on an acting basis. ICE has been without a permanent, Senate-confirmed director since Trump first took office in 2017.

Venturella will oversee an agency that has come under intense congressional and public scrutiny after federal immigration agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. 

The deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti led to a months-long shutdown of DHS, after Democrats pushed for constraints on federal immigration officers. The shutdown ended last month, and Republicans are moving forward with funding ICE and Customs and Border Protection for the next three years, through a complex legislative process that does not require Democratic votes. 

Venturella worked at DHS during the Obama administration, when he led the Secure Communities program in which local law enforcement shared fingerprints and booking information with federal immigration officials to identify immigrants in the country without legal authorization. The Obama administration eventually ended the program, but Trump revived it in 2017.

Venturella has also worked for the private prison company GEO, which earns billions in government contracts to detain immigrants across the country. He retired from GEO in 2023 after serving as the vice president of client relations.

On paper it makes little sense. Ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, roughly 7,000 miles from the United States, is restricted and gasoline prices in this country soar? 

The strait is the major export route for oil produced by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Iran, according to the International Energy Agency. But since Feb. 28, when the Iran war began and the narrow passageway between Oman and Iran became a battleground, U.S. gasoline prices have soared — and the prices of consumer products and services are poised to jump as well. 

Most oil passing through the strait goes to Asian markets, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And due to greater domestic production, the U.S. is importing less crude oil from the Persian Gulf than it has in 40 years, EIA said in a March analysis.

So why are U.S. consumers paying so much more for gasoline? Globalization.

“Supply disruptions anywhere in the world can also affect prices everywhere in the world because we live in a global market,” explained Jeff Lenard, a vice president of the trade group National Association of Convenience Stores. “Oil and refined products like gasoline are traded on the commodities markets. Places with short supply are willing to pay more for product. That drives up the global price.”

Gas prices are tied to the global supply and demand for crude oil, meaning a disruption to the supply anywhere can have an effect everywhere, said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, which tracks gas prices.

“It’s because the price of oil is based on how much is available in total. Since oil from there is in short supply, the rest of the oil all around the world becomes more expensive,” De Haan said.

A gallon of regular gasoline Monday cost an average of $4.52, according to AAA up from $4.14 a month ago and $3.14 a year ago. Consumer prices overall were up 0.9% in March, and were averaging 3.3% higher over the past year.

Dissecting prices

While the Middle East oil disruption affects prices throughout the world, retail pump costs can vary dramatically from state to state across the U.S.

California’s average Monday was $6.16, the nation’s highest, AAA reported. Next were Washington, $5.76, and Hawaii, $5.65. The lowest averages were in Oklahoma, $3.95, Mississippi, $3.98 and Arkansas, $4.

The price of crude oil is the biggest part of the price consumers pay at the pump. EIA estimates that it makes up 51% of the retail cost. Distribution and marketing account for 11%, refining costs and profits 20% and federal and state taxes 18%.

That means dramatic changes in the price of crude have a huge impact on retail prices.

 window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

The National Association of Convenience Stores estimates that each dollar the price of oil increases could be 2.4 cents a gallon at the pump.

Brent crude, the world benchmark, was $70.50 the day before the U.S. and Israel struck Iran. Monday morning, it was more than $104.

The $34 a barrel increase since the war began would mean a 82-cent per gallon increase. 

Competition can keep prices from rising too much. No gas station wants to be an outlier projecting much higher prices than the one across the street.

Taxes and gasoline prices

There are other factors impacting gasoline prices, notably taxes that vary from state to state. 

The federal tax on gasoline has been 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993. President Donald Trump said Monday he supports freezing the tax, though he offered no timeline. A suspension would need congressional approval, and Republican leaders have in the past been reluctant to embrace any pause.

While the average state tax is 33.55 cents a gallon, it varies widely. California’s taxes and fees are estimated at 70.9 cents a gallon, the nation’s highest. The lowest tax and fee rate is in Alaska, 9 cents a gallon.

California’s costs are also boosted by other factors, including its tough environmental standards. The state requires a special blend of gasoline that aims to help air quality.

“This fuel burns cleaner but is more expensive to produce because it requires more processing steps and expensive blending components,” EIA said.

Another reason for the higher prices is California’s reliance on in-state refineries. It doesn’t have as much proximity as other states to interstate supply pipelines

Ripple effects

About 20% of the world’s oil passed through the strait prior to the war. But reopening the strait would be unlikely to suddenly bring prices down.

“In complex supply chains, a disruption in one critical link, even if only briefly, can cascade through the system, well beyond the initial event,” Pinar Keskinocak, professor at the H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering at Georgia Tech, said in an analysis. “As delays persist and compound, interconnected systems often take a long time to recover, rebalance, and return to normal.”

“I don’t expect there to be an open flooding of barrels just leaving the region,” said Jerome Dortmans, co-head of global oil and products trading in Goldman Sachs Global Banking & Markets, in an analysis.

And if the Iran crisis continues and the strait remains restricted, more price pain is probably ahead.

“A prolonged disruption of Middle East oil trade would create oil market conditions for which there is no historical precedent,” said a March report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

If NorthWestern Energy and Black Hills Corp merge, the deal could mean as much as $16 million for CEO Brian Bird, and a total of nearly $30 million for the top five executives of the Montana utility.

Bird is CEO of NorthWestern, and if the Montana Public Service Commission approves the proposed merger, and the deal goes through, Bird would head the new company, Bright Horizon Energy.

Tuesday, the Montana Public Service Commission’s hearing on the $15.4 billion merger started, with ratepayers calling for more transparency when it comes to data centers, and business representatives pushing for approval of the deal in a quest for reliable power.

In opening statements, lawyers for the utilities argued the merger will “deliver long-term value to customers” —  but one attorney representing a couple of third parties said it would be a “betrayal” of Montanans.

“Everyone at the table negotiating this deal loved it,” said lawyer Monica Tranel, with 350 Montana and the Montana Farmers Union. “They all can make a lot of money from it. But who wasn’t there? The people of Montana.”

In questioning, Tranel showed NorthWestern would have less control if the merger is approved; Black Hills would account for 56% of the parent company overseeing the merged entity, while NorthWestern would account for 44%, and Black Hills would have six board seats, while NorthWestern would have five.

But lawyer Sarah Norcott, with NorthWestern Energy, said a merged company would still be under the oversight of the Montana Public Service Commission. Additionally, Norcott said the utility would be better equipped to weather market volatility and have easier access to capital to invest in infrastructure.

“Our Montana utility operations will remain exactly where they are today,” Norcott said.

In August 2025, NorthWestern Energy and Black Hills announced the proposed dealannounced the proposed deal, which requires approval from regulators, including the Montana Public Service Commission. The PSC is made up of five elected officials, currently all Republican, with two seats up for election this year.

The proposal under consideration includes four settlement agreements, including with the Montana Consumer Counsel, which advocates for customers, but ratepayers and conservation watchdogs have raised questions about the merger.

For example, a filing in the case has estimated labor “savings” at $36 million, with ensuing concerns about employee cuts in Montana. Also, on an investors call, Bird pitched the merger as a chance to “really capture data center opportunities,” but NorthWestern has blacked out most of the details in documents about those deals.

Tuesday, the hearing started with public comment, and many Montanans pointed to Bird’s remarks about the “capture” of data center businesses. Leah Nuese-Yaker, a recent graduate of the University of Montana, said the deal is for shareholders and tech companies, not Montanans.

“It is not for Montana families. It is not for rural communities who are already feeling the squeeze of rising utility costs,” Nuese-Yaker said.

Sarah Lundquist, with Families for a Livable Climate, said in other states, data center demand is leading to reliability concerns and “pressure on electricity costs,” with residential customers needing protection.

“Montanans should not be asked to shoulder these risks without clear protections and full public transparency,” Lundquist said.

But representatives of the business community asked the Public Service Commission to approve the merger to ensure companies in Montana can count on electricity to run operations into the future.

John Iverson, with the Treasure State Resources Association, said energy intensive businesses in timber, oil, gas, transportation and construction make investment decisions years, even decades in advance.

In doing so, Iverson said they need to know power will remain affordable and reliable.

“Without that, we don’t have these large-scale operations in Montana,” Iverson said. “We simply can’t support them.”

State Rep. Gary Parry, R-Colstrip, urged support for the merger. Parry, who represents a community with NorthWestern’s coal-fired plant and sits on Gov. Greg Gianforte’s energy task force, also said the question before the PSC isn’t about data centers.

“From my perspective, this merger is fundamentally about reliability, long-term infrastructure investment and ensuring Montana has a utility capable of meeting the growing demand, energy demands, of our state and region,” Parry said.

In opening statements, Norcott, on behalf of NorthWestern, said nothing in the merger diminishes the Public Service Commission’s authority, weakens regulatory protections, or shifts risk onto customers.

“Montana will remain the largest jurisdiction after the merger closes,” Norcott said. “Rates will remain unchanged because of the merger. Today’s exceptional service by these two utilities will remain.”

On behalf of Black Hills, lawyer Wiley Barker said the utilities are “natural” partners, serving some of the same territory, and sharing strong commitments to their respective communities and customers.

“This is not an acquisition. It is a true merger of equals,” Barker said.

On behalf of a couple of intervenors, however, Tranel said the people crafting the deal all have something to gain, from bankers who will get as much as $60 million in transaction fees to shareholders who already own both companies and will get a 5% to 7% higher return.

A Securities and Exchange Commission filing outlines the potential wins for NorthWestern executives should the merger close, including $16 million for Bird, $5.3 million for Crystal Lail, $2.9 million for Shannon Heim, $2.5 million for John Hines, and $2.6 million for Bobbi Schroeppel.

By comparison, Tranel said a credit for customers in a settlement with the Montana Consumer Counsel is $10 million, which she said some will argue is a good deal. But Tranel said that amount translates to about $18 a household — “not a customer, a household.”

Tranel also said if the merger is approved, the utilities together would control a span of  land covering 20% of the United States, “a multistate area that covers the prime agricultural land in this country,” and a deal she said is designed to serve data center demand.

In its early days, Montana saw the Copper Kings enrich themselves in the state at the expense of clean rivers and workers, and some members of the public said they worried the merger would bring more of the same.

“If the Public Service Commission approves this merger, you will be creating a whole new modern-day robber-baron class … that will once again get filthy rich at the expense of our water, our Earth, our paychecks and generations to come,” said Patty Ames.

Mark Brastrup spoke about more recent history. Brastrup said he’s a journeyman lineman who has worked on the electrical grid in Montana for 30 years, and he sees firsthand what it takes to keep the electricity flowing.

Brastrup said the merger should be approved as a practical matter. He said Montana is a big state with tough weather and infrastructure that requires constant upkeep and investment, and a larger utility will mean more access to capital and resources.

“Keeping the system reliable takes people, materials, money and consistency over time,” Brastrup said. “What I’ve seen over the years, when the investment falls behind, the grid falls behind. Repairs take longer. Equipment ages out. The job gets harder and less safe for the crews working it. That’s where I see the benefit.”

The hearing is expected to resume at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday and conclude Friday.

A recent news release from the utilities about the merger said the deal still requires approval from regulators in Nebraska and South Dakota, and the companies expect to close the second part of 2026.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary on Tuesday became the latest member of President Donald Trump’s administration to leave their post this year. 

“I want to thank Dr. Marty Makary for having done a great job at the FDA. So much was accomplished under his leadership,” Trump wrote on social media. “He was a hard worker, who was respected by all, and will go on to have an outstanding career in Medicine. Kyle Diamantas, a very talented person, will be put in the Acting position.”

Diamantas was working as the deputy commissioner for food, leading the program that focuses on nutrition and food safety.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote in a social media post that Makary “pushed forward critical reforms and helped advance our mission to Make America Healthy Again.”

“I also want to thank Kyle Diamantas for stepping in as Acting Commissioner — his leadership has already delivered remarkable wins on the MAHA food agenda, and I have full confidence in his continued work,” Kennedy added. “We have an outstanding team at FDA, and the work continues without pause. The search for a new Commissioner is already underway, and we will move forward with urgency.”

Makary’s resignation marks the fourth time a senior member of the Trump administration has either left or been forced out during the last few months. 

Kristi Noem was ousted as Homeland Security secretary in early March, moving to a different job as a special envoy. Pam Bondi resigned as attorney general in early April to move back to the private sector. And Lori Chavez-DeRemer stepped down as Labor secretary in late April, following scandals.

The Senate voted to confirm Makary to lead the FDA in March 2025, with Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois as well as Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire supporting him. 

Medication abortion

Makary’s decision to leave the FDA comes several months after anti-abortion organizations and some Republicans in Congress called for Trump to fire him over his record on access to medication abortion. 

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and Lila Rose, founder of Live Action, both released statements in December pressing for the FDA to restrict access to mifepristone. 

“The FDA needs a new commissioner who will immediately reinstate in-person dispensing as it existed under President Trump’s first term and immediately conduct a comprehensive study,” Dannenfelser wrote in a statement at the time. “Commissioner Makary is severely undermining President Trump and Vice President Vance’s pro-life credentials and their position that states should have the right to enact and enforce pro-life protections. Makary must go.”

Missouri U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley sent a letter to Makary the following day urging him to wrap up a review of the current prescribing guidelines for mifepristone. 

Their frustration followed a Bloomberg Law news article that said Makary didn’t want to release the results of the study until after November’s midterm elections, which will determine which political party controls Congress for the next two years.

The Bureau of Land Management issued a final decision late last week canceling a series of permits that allowed bison grazing on federal land by the nonprofit conservation organization American Prairie.

The move, which came after American Prairie and multiple other organizations formally protested a preliminary decision earlier this year, was condemned by conservation groups but praised by elected officials in Montana, who have sought the cancellation of bison grazing leases for years.

“This final decision is a victory for the rule of law and the generations of Montanans who have stewarded our lands with care,” Gov. Greg Gianforte said in a statement. “For far too long, the Biden administration ignored the clear language of the Taylor Grazing Act in favor of an ideological experiment. I’m proud of our administration for leading the fight to reach this decision and I thank Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and BLM for putting Montanans first.”

American Prairie has a mission to conserve prairie land in Montana to create one of the largest nature reserves in the country, abutting Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument. The nonprofit owns and leases more than 500,000 acres in the state.

Across some sections of that leased acreage — specifically six allotments comprising around 63,000 acres of federal land, according to the group — American Prairie grazes around 900 bison under the authorization of the BLM, with some leases stretching back two decades.

“American Prairie has lawfully grazed bison on BLM lands for more than 20 years, complying with every rule, regulation, and permit requirement,” said Alison Fox, CEO of American Prairie. “BLM lawfully issued these permits and recognized that bison are qualified to graze on federal lands under longstanding practice and law. Reversing course now under political pressure undermines trust in the agency’s decision-making and threatens the future of bison restoration across the West.”

The decision by BLM focused on the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act, which is the legal framework that created grazing districts and governs leases on federal lands.

According to the BLM decision, the Act allows permits to be issued “to graze livestock,” and under a new interpretation of federal statutes, bison do not meet the definition of livestock.

Citing a legal dictionary, the decision states that livestock refers to domestic animals “used for production-oriented purposes.”

“The BLM lacks statutory authority to issue grazing permits under the TGA where the animals to be grazed are treated as wildlife and intended for conservation purposes and will not be managed for production,” the decision states.

It goes on to state that American Prairie’s bison operations are not domestic nor production oriented.

“This decision affirms what livestock producers have long argued for in the compliance of governing law,” Montana Stockgrowers Association President Lesley Robinson in a statement.

BLM terminated all bison or combined cattle/bison grazing permits for American Prairie and reissued cattle-only grazing permits on six federal allotments. The permit terminations will be effective on Sept. 30, to allow American Prairie to remove its bison herd from the land parcels.

A spokesperson for American Prairie told the Daily Montanan the organization plans to appeal the decision.

“This final decision by the BLM makes it clear that this is an all-out attack on conservation. It is a textbook example of the government moving the goal posts and changing the rules in the middle of the game to reach a predetermined outcome,” said Mary Cochenour, attorney for American Prairie. “There have been no grazing violations, and the administrative record contains objective evidence showing that rangeland conditions have improved over the last two decades with bison on the landscape.”

In addition to the protest lodged by American Prairie, BLM said that the agency received 34 other protest letters that “contained nearly 200 unique protest points,” including many from tribal governments and organizations.

In response to concerns the decision could impact dozens of tribal nations that retaining rights to hunt and manage bison across traditional lands, the BLM notes that its decision is specific to “this particular non-tribal permittee” and the agency is “not adjudicating grazing rights of any tribal governments or representatives.”

According to a 2025 BLM infographic about the agency’s grazing program, there are 41 grazing permits for bison issued by the bureau, alongside 18,000 permits and leases overall (including eight for reindeer.)

The state of Montana originally protested a series of permits issued to American Prairie in 2022, arguing that replacing production livestock with non-production bison damaged the local economy and ignored the statutory requirements for federal grazing permits.

Gianforte and the entire federal delegation, all Republicans, had sent letters to the Trump administration urging the repeal of the bison leases.

Members of the state’s delegation also praised the decision in statements to the press.

“Nobody makes better beef than Montana ranchers. This decision is a return to the original mission the BLM was created for,” said Rep. Ryan Zinke in a statement to the media. “The Taylor Grazing Act made clear these lands play a critical role in feeding our nation and sustaining rural communities, they are not meant to be locked up to satisfy the latest Washington political agenda. In Montana, working lands support ranching families who help put food on America’s tables.”

Montana’s senior Sen. Steve Daines thanked Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and President Donald Trump for “restoring common sense land management.”

Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who worked on behalf of the state to cancel the bison leases, called the decision a “huge victory” for Montana farmers and ranchers.”

“As someone who grew up farming and ranching in Northeast Montana, I know how important this decision is to protect the hardworking livestock and ranching communities in that region and keep the elitists from destroying their livelihood,” Knudsen said.

Montana is also looking to restrict leases on state land for bison grazing, with a recent proposal by the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, at the behest of the state Land Board —comprising Gianforte and Montana’s five statewide elected officials including Knudsen — seeking to give preference for bidders involved in “production livestock operations.”

Friday’s decision was signed by Bill Groffy, acting director of the BLM.

A vote to confirm President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the BLM, Steve Pearce, is also expected soon.

 

A new report says prescribed burns and thinning projects save money, longterm, highlighting new peer-reviewed economic research on wildfires.

The report, released by Bozeman-based Property and Environment Research Center, a “free market environmentalism” nonprofit think-tank, draws heavily on two economics papers looking at fire suppression costs and damages, which say every $1 invested in fuel treatments in Pacific Northwest national forests yields between $5 and $6 dollars in reduced firefighting expenditures.

Additionally, the research states that across the western United States, each dollar invested in national forest fuel treatments “yields an average of $3.73 in expected benefits through avoided damages from smoke and property loss.”

Frederik Strabo, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, Davis, and PERC said that was calculated, in part, by looking at areas that had burned after fuel treatment. Economic wildfire research has been “pretty limited” previously, Strabo said.

Using Forest Service data sets, they were able to use actual treatment data in research — most previous research has been largely hypothetical, he said.

“They’ve put together a very well documented and kind of comprehensive fuel treatment database that we were able to use,” Strabo said this week. “So we actually kind of use the on-the-ground fuel treatments, and then there’s all this great data on wildfires and what different aspects of wildfire costs, and so we essentially are able to evaluate how these treatments influence wildfire behavior.”

Researchers were able to assess factors like burn severity and the probability of fire spread, Strabo said.

The PERC report also states larger projects (often referred to as landscape-scale, which are projects 2,400 acres and more) also produce greater returns. 

“The Forest Service’s long-standing collaboration with private firms in timber sales offers a model for how these partnerships could be modernized to deliver fuel treatments at scale,” the PERC report states. 

U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said earlier this year in Helena that landscape-scale treatments of forests are no longer an “academic exercise” and that his agency has renewed focus on implementing forest plans. Forest plans are guiding documents each state uses to drive forest policy.

It also comes in the midst of legislation — including some by Sen. Tim Sheehy, a Republican representing Montana — seeking to promote fuel reductions work and expand the Good Neighbor Authority program, which allows the state and federal government to partner on forestry projects and provides timber for the forest industry.

The research comes in the midst of cuts to federal land management agencies. According to an analysis by Hawk Eye Strategies and Prospect Partners, Montana lost 267 Forest Service employees in 2025, which was 13% of the state’s total.

The National Park Service lost 53 employees, the Bureau of Land Management lost 58 and the Bureau of Reclamation lost 106 Montana employees, which was a third of the state’s total.

All together, the state lost 15% of its federal public lands workforce in the state in 2025, the analysis says.

“By eliminating critical scientific roles, this administration has effectively destroyed Montana’s alarm systems for natural disasters and other environmental crises,” Andrea Delgado, who helped create that analysis, said in a press release. “We are entering a summer of increased fire potential with 40% fewer entomologists to track insect infestations and 35% fewer soil scientists to manage land health.”

The PERC study added that the Forest Service manages nearly 200 million acres of land with 25,000 people. 

“These challenges are compounded by institutional incentives that favor short-term fire suppression over long-term prevention, along with regulatory requirements—such as endangered species protections, federal and state air-quality standards, federally designated Wilderness areas, and review under NEPA—that can delay or prevent fuel-reduction projects, even in forests at high risk of wildfire,” the PERC report states.

Legal challenges to forestry projects have been common and a source of contention for some. Some of those groups pushing the legal challenges have pointed to research they say shows forests are closer to their natural density than some federal studies would suggest.

Last month, for example, the Gallatin Wildlife Association, Alliance for The Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, and Council on Wildlife and Fish filed suit to stop logging and burning on more than 5,600 acres between Hyalite and South Cottonwood canyons south of Bozeman.

“Talking to a lot of fire ecologists, experts, they typically, point out, even though they would self describe themselves as ardent environmentalists, they think that some of this environmental litigation is one of the biggest hurdles to conducting fuel treatments,” Strabo said.

He added it’s “well documented” that natural fire return intervals are “out of wack” and adding that fuel treatments do not go against the natural ecosystem.

“Is it really just an information problem, or people not educated? Or is this a misunderstanding? I know there’s the narrative that a lot of people who say they’re environmentalists might just be getting nervous about this being an excuse to just do logging,” Strabo said. “And so this is a result of decades of mistrust between environmental groups and public agencies.”

PERC26_BeyondWildfireSuppression

WASHINGTON — The cost of the Iran war has increased to $29 billion to date, Pentagon officials told lawmakers in both chambers Tuesday.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine and Department of Defense acting comptroller Jules Hurst faced questions from House and Senate appropriators over several hours of testimony on the administration’s Pentagon budget request and the direction of the U.S. operation in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.

The hearings began just as the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the latest inflation figures that showed skyrocketing fuel costs drove overall inflation to the highest level since 2023.

Rep. Betty McCollum, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, said she remains skeptical of Pentagon spending, as it has lacked “sufficient transparency with gas prices and inflation numbers increasing.”

“The American people just want to afford the basic necessities for everyday life, but this administration is not doing anything to help them with the cost of living crisis,” the Minnesota lawmaker said.

Inflation

Similarly, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee and serves as the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, said “vague generalities are not helping this committee make critical judgments.”

“And the tradeoffs are significant. The deficit is increasing dramatically. We have to be conscious of that. We also have to be conscious (of) helping American families just get by, and inflation just hit 3.8% today,” Reed said.

The latest Consumer Price Index reached 3.8% over one year ago, according to the Department of Labor, up from 3.3% last month.

Fuel and energy costs largely drove the inflation increase, with gasoline up 28.4% compared to last year.

Oil and gas prices have soared since the U.S. joined Israel in launching strikes against Iran on Feb. 28. The protracted conflict has led to a near standstill in the Strait of Hormuz, a key maritime passageway off the coast of Iran where one-fifth of the world’s petroleum crossed prior to the war.

‘It comes with cost’

Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., questioned the Pentagon’s estimate that the war has cost $29 billion, calling it “suspiciously low.”

When pressed, Hurst said the figure does not include the cost of damage to U.S. military bases in the Middle East. Iran launched retaliatory strikes in March on multiple American installations in the region, including a strike on a base in Kuwait that killed six U.S. troops.

“Your acting comptroller suggested that damage to U.S. facilities was not factored into that figure,” Murray said to Hegseth. “It is clear that there has been extensive damage to American military assets.”

The secretary said he could not divulge details on damage to U.S. assets.

“I think an important point is, considering what the president is undertaking, what is the cost of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon? And the fact that this president’s been willing to make a historic and courageous choice to confront that, it comes with cost. And we recognize that,” Hegseth said.

Congressional authorization

Despite continued tit-for-tat attacks in the Strait of Hormuz, Hegseth told lawmakers that a ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran is still in effect.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, asked Hegseth whether he believes President Donald Trump will need congressional authorization to continue military activity against the Islamic Republic.

“It doesn’t appear that hostilities have ended, and so the question to you is whether or not the administration has considered or had intended to seek an authorization of the use of military force from the Congress?” she asked.

Hegseth replied: “Senator, our view is that should the president make the decision to recommence that we would have all the authorities to do so.”

Efforts to pass a War Powers Resolution to rein in Trump’s military operations in Iran have failed multiple times in the the Republican-led Senate and House.

A vote is possible this week in the House on a bipartisan War Powers Resolution.

JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri — Control of the U.S. House may run through a courtroom in Missouri.

In a red brick courthouse across the street from the state Capitol, the seven black-robed judges of the Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday morning weighed the fate of a Republican gerrymander aimed at ousting U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a 11-term Democrat from Kansas City.

In the afternoon, they upheld the map.

Its opponents “failed to show the 2025 Map clearly and undoubtedly violates the requirements” of the state constitution, the court ruled hours after holding oral arguments.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s late April decision sharply curtailing the use of race in redistricting, much of the legal fight over gerrymandering is moving to state courts. The decision, Louisiana vs. Callais, gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which limited states’ ability to divide districts where a majority of residents belong to a racial minority group.

Southern Republican states have rushed forward new maps over the past two weeks that take advantage of the landmark opinion, adding to a handful of others, including Missouri, that already drew new lines in recent months at President Donald Trump’s behest before the midterms elections this November. Another wave of gerrymanders across the rest of the country will likely follow next year ahead of the 2028 election.

State supreme courts may have the final word on some of the maps. Even if the maps don’t involve issues decided in Callais, like the challenge in Missouri, many states have constitutional or statutory provisions that curb gerrymandering and limit last-minute changes to elections — providing gerrymandering opponents with grounds to challenge new district boundaries.

With federal redistricting lawsuits increasingly difficult, state laws offer gerrymandering opponents another path. 

Thirty states have some form of a constitutional requirement for free elections, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. And at least 10 state supreme courts have found that state courts can decide cases involving allegations of partisan gerrymandering, according to a 2024 review by the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School. 

“I think state courts are primarily going to be the place where future fights around these maps are playing out in a post-Callais landscape,” said Alicia Bannon, director of the judiciary program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Legal challenges abound

The elevated importance of state courts was on full display Friday, when the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated an election in which voters narrowly approved a Democratic map. The decision leaves a new map in California as the party’s only successful response so far to the GOP redistricting onslaught. Democrats have made a longshot request to the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Virginia ruling.

Lawsuits have already been filed in state courts over new maps in Florida and Louisiana. Alabama’s new map could also face a legal challenge in state court, even after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for the gerrymander to take effect. 

At stake in these courtroom fights is which party will control the U.S. House over the next two years, earning the power to advance or thwart legislation. While Democrats remain generally favored to retake the chamber in the November midterm elections, Republicans will likely emerge from the gerrymandering war with at least a handful of seats secured.

Suddenly, every state supreme court decision — including over a single seat in Missouri — takes on greater significance.

Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, which is helping challenge the Missouri map, told reporters on Monday that the state’s high court had a “spotlight on” it.

“Is the court going to do what it has done in the past in a nonpartisan way that is faithful to their own precedent,” she asked ahead of the decision. “Or are they going to roll over?”

Missouri case

The Republican-controlled Missouri General Assembly in September approved a map intended to leave the state with just one Democrat in Congress, in the St. Louis area. Kansas City was divided among three districts, splitting apart its Democratic-leaning and racially diverse core. 

The Missouri Supreme Court considered three challenges to the map. Two similar lawsuits argue that some of the congressional districts don’t follow the state constitution’s requirements that districts be as compact as possible.

A third lawsuit argues that the map shouldn’t be in effect for the 2026 election because opponents in December submitted more than 305,000 signatures seeking to force a statewide referendum vote on the lines. In the past, state officials have paused the implementation of measures subject to a referendum until a vote is held, but in this instance they say the new lines are active.

During Tuesday’s oral arguments, the judges sat almost entirely stone-faced as they listened. Only one judge asked a single question during arguments that stretched for more than an hour, offering no sense of how the court would rule.

“There is no such thing as a perfect map or a perfect district,” Missouri Principal Deputy Solicitor General Kathleen Hunker said.

Jonathan Hawley, an attorney representing Missouri voters who argue the referendum means the map isn’t in effect, said his case will decide whether the people of Missouri “still have a meaningful referendum.”

“The referendum right is the people’s veto,” Hawley said.

The Missouri Supreme Court hours later ruled against both challenges to the maps — allowing the new lines to be used this year.

“Had the drafters intended a referendum petition filing to automatically suspend any act of the General Assembly at issue in the referendum petition, they would have so stated,” the court’s opinion says.

Florida’s GOP gerrymander

Only two Southern states, Florida and Kentucky, allow courts to decide partisan gerrymandering cases.

Kentucky, which has a Democratic governor, hasn’t taken up redistricting this year. But a Florida Supreme Court decision striking down a new map there would effectively offset Democrats’ loss at the Virginia Supreme Court.

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law a map passed by the state legislature during a special session on the same day as the Callais decision. The new congressional boundaries are designed to hand Republicans up to four additional seats.

Several voting rights groups have sued, alleging the map violates the Florida Constitution. A 2010 amendment approved by voters prohibits districts drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent.

“Instead of abiding by this law, the Legislature is defying the will of voters and backing a map that was crafted entirely with partisan intent,” Simone Leeper, senior legal counsel for redistricting at Campaign Legal Center, said in a statement. 

The Campaign Legal Center and the UCLA Voting Rights Project have sued jointly over the map.

DeSantis’s office told state lawmakers ahead of this year’s special session that the 2010 amendment requires the state legislature to account for race when drawing districts — and that the provisions regarding race can’t be severed from the rest of the amendment. In effect, DeSantis contends the whole amendment must be thrown out.

The Florida governor’s pitch, coupled with the Callais decision, persuaded GOP lawmakers.

“I have a ton of comfort because the Callais decision came out,” Florida state Rep. Alex Andrade, a Pensacola Republican, said. “I got to read it, and it perfectly summarizes exactly why we could, and should, change our 2022 maps.”

Map opponents’ chance of success at the Florida Supreme Court is unclear. The court as recently as 2015 blocked a congressional map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, but it has moved to the right in the years since. Six of the seven current justices were appointed by DeSantis and the other was appointed by a different Republican governor.

“The composition of the Florida Supreme Court has changed dramatically since that earlier ruling,” Bannon, the Brennan Center expert, said. “So I think there are questions about will the court be as open to those arguments.”

Process challenges

In other Southern states, map opponents are turning to arguments beside partisan gerrymandering.

The Tennessee chapter of the NAACP has sued Republican Gov. Bill Lee and the state General Assembly to block a gerrymander passed last week from taking effect. The organization alleges Lee violated the state constitution in how he called a special session for a new map. 

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, a Republican, has urged a court to dismiss Lee and the legislature from lawsuit because they don’t conduct elections.

Alabama Democrats and voting rights groups are weighing a legal challenge to a new map that would focus on a 2022 amendment to the state constitution. The amendment requires election law changes to be made at least six months before a general election — a deadline of May 3 this year. Alabama’s redistricting special session began the next day.

In Louisiana, state lawmakers have not yet passed a new map after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the state’s current lines as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because the legislature had previously created a second majority-Black district. Lawmakers are expected to advance a map aimed at ousting one of the state’s two Democratic House members, who are both Black.

After the Callais decision, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry suspended the state’s congressional primary elections although roughly 42,000 absentee ballots had already been cast. Lawsuits challenging the suspension have been filed in both federal and state court.

Too late to change?

In Missouri on Tuesday, lawyers for Republican state officials took the opposite approach, urging the state supreme court to keep the map in place for the 2026 election, even if the judges strike it down. Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, told reporters afterward that preventing the state from using the map now would lead to confusion, even as 12 weeks remain before the primary election.

“It’ll be disarray for the people that have been going to town halls and listening to candidates,” Hoskins said. “It would be disarray for the candidates that are running and going out and meeting voters in their district. And it’d be disarray for the local election authorities and county clerks that have already started instituting” the new map.

Hoskins’ fears turned out to be unfounded, as the court upheld the map.

Cleaver, who is running for reelection, has said that his work ethic or commitment to voters won’t change regardless of his district boundaries. 

“If I have to serve the people who live just outside of Columbia and Jefferson City, then I’ll do that,” he said when he filed to run earlier this year.

Attorneys for the ACLU of Missouri, which supported challenges to the map, said it was unfair to Missouri residents for the state to create a problem and then argue it’s too late to change it. 

At a rally outside the Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday, ACLU of Missouri Policy Director Tori Schafer expressed confidence the judges would side with map opponents — hours before they allowed the lines to move forward.

“But let me clear,” Schafer said, “democracy did not begin in a courtroom and it will not be saved in a courtroom.”

Florida Phoenix reporter Mitch Perry contributed to this report.

The United States Bureau of Land Management on Monday formally cancelled the so-called “Public Land Rule,” which required the agency to consider conservation and development equally in land-use decisions for millions of acres across the West. 

The BLM, which manages 13.5 million acres of land in New Mexico, published a notice Monday in the Federal Register finalizing its elimination of the 2024 rule, officially known as the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. The agency first announced it was considering eliminating the rule in September.

The Biden-era rule provided guidance for ensuring conservation received due consideration along with mining, timber, grazing, recreation or other uses on public lands. It also allowed the BLM to issue leases specifically for conservation, though the agency never issued any.

The BLM’s notice Monday said officials had received and responded to nearly 140,000 public comments in response to the proposal. Ultimately, officials said eliminating the 2024 rule was necessary because it “threatened to restrict productive use of the public lands and introduced uncertainty and unnecessary burdens in planning and permitting.” The rule’s elimination comes alongside executive orders and other actions by the Trump administration to expand drilling, mineral production and other commercial uses of public lands.

Michael Carroll, a campaign director for environmentalist group The Wilderness Society, told Source NM on Monday that the rule’s rescission, which officially goes into effect in 30 days, will leave millions of acres across the West newly vulnerable to oil and gas extraction and mining. 

“They’re effectively saying, ‘We’re just going to prioritize extraction across BLM lands,’ Carroll said. “They’re going to be prioritizing industrial-scale development on those public lands. I think we’ll see that right away.”

He also noted that the BLM determined it did not need to consult with Indigenous tribes in its decision to rescind the rule, which he called “shocking in terms of its disrespect to tribal nations,” many of which sit adjacent to federal lands. 

The Wilderness Society was among many environmental groups that denounced the end of the “Public Lands Rule” on Wednesday. Several public statements from the groups mentioned the pending U.S. Senate confirmation of Steve Pearce, a former New Mexico Republican congressman, as BLM director. 

If the Senate confirms him, Pearce, who has deep ties to the oil and gas industry, will oversee an agency that is no longer required to consider conservation as an acceptable use of public land, Carroll said. 

“Today is a bad day for those people who care about public lands and care about the Bureau of Land Management,” he said. “But we’ll keep fighting and keep pushing back.”

This story was originally produced by Source New Mexico, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

As President Donald Trump tries to assert power over U.S. elections, he has raged on social media, cajoled Republican lawmakers and unleashed the Department of Justice on his political enemies.

What has he accomplished with all that effort? Not a lot.

Six months before the November midterm elections, the Trump administration’s quest to exercise authority over the contests and impose sweeping restrictions on voters has proved largely unsuccessful. The aggressive campaign — separate from Trump’s more effective foray into redistricting fights — has been stymied by the courts, rebuffed by many state election officials and opposed by key Republican senators.

“I think there’s many out there who are worried about the constant drumbeat of what the administration is trying to do and what they might do in the future. I hear this from voters, I hear this from election officials,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research.

“And what I see is that there is a vast chasm between wanting to do something and trying to do something and actually successfully doing it.”

Months yet to go

Much could change between now and November, of course. 

Facing likely Republican losses in the midterms, election experts warn that Trump could lash out with increasingly brazen attempts to control elections. Or that the Justice Department will conduct more raids targeting election officials, like the FBI seizure of ballots from the 2020 presidential election from Fulton County, Georgia.

Democrats remain braced for federal election interference, especially the prospect of Trump deploying immigration enforcement agents or the military at polling locations — an action prohibited under federal law that some administration aides have nevertheless refused to flatly rule out.

But Trump’s record of achievement up to this point is poor.

The SAVE America Act, which would require voters to prove their citizenship, is stalled in the U.S. Senate despite Trump’s repeated demands for its passage. Federal courts blocked an executive order Trump signed last year that sought to impose a proof-of-citizenship rule unilaterally.

The Justice Department hasn’t secured a single court victory in the 30 lawsuits it’s filed to force states and the District of Columbia to turn over sensitive personal data on voters. A bipartisan group of state secretaries of state is fighting the Trump administration in court — only 13 Republican states have provided the information.

And an executive order signed in March that would limit voting by mail faces five federal lawsuits, with an initial courtroom showdown set for Thursday in Washington, D.C. Federal agencies have yet to finalize plans to implement the directive, which election law experts call illegal and unconstitutional.

“America’s Elections are Rigged, Stolen, and a Laughingstock all over the World. We are either going to fix them, or we won’t have a Country any longer,” Trump posted on Truth Social in late April.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told States Newsroom that Trump is committed “to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters.” 

Jackson named several federal laws that she said provide the Justice Department oversight over states’ election administration. She also noted Trump’s support for the SAVE America Act.

“Anyone breaking the law will be held accountable,” Jackson said in an email.

System under strain

Trump has placed the nation’s electoral system under immense stress before. 

After the 2020 election, the president and his allies worked to overturn the results, with Trump leaning on then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject Electoral College votes. The effort failed but it led to a mob storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and disrupting Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s victory.

Today, the system is holding but under strain. An analysis released Thursday by Issue One, a pro-democracy group, likened American elections to a resilient patient with a strong immune system. Yet the Trump administration, rather than boosting the body’s immunity, acts like a virus, it said.

“America’s election system’s immune system is not breaking, but it is actively fighting against the virus of democratic backsliding,” the analysis reads.

The group identified three safeguards it says are in critical condition: Congress, internal checks within the executive branch and the information ecosystem. 

Election officials have watched with particular concern as the Justice Department probes the 2020 election. Trump has long falsely asserted that the election was stolen and in January 2021 pressured the Georgia secretary of state to find him enough votes to overturn his loss in that state.

After the FBI obtained a warrant to seize 2020 election ballots from Fulton County, which encompasses Atlanta, in January 2026, the DOJ last month sent a subpoena for information on the county’s election workers. The subpoena demands the names, positions, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of election workers and poll volunteers who worked the 2020 general election.

Fulton County is fighting the subpoena in court. On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that the FBI doesn’t have to give the ballots back to the county, though he noted the seizure “was certainly not perfect.”

The Justice Department has also obtained a grand jury subpoena for election records in Arizona and demanded 2024 ballots from Wayne County, Michigan, which includes Detroit. And the FBI recently interviewed a Wisconsin election official about the 2020 election, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.

Local leaders have promised that they won’t bend to pressure from the Trump administration.

“This whole thing is designed to harass, intimidate and chill participation in our election process,” Fulton County Board of Commissioners Chair Robb Pitts, a Democrat, said in a video statement. “It’s not going to work, it’s not going to happen.”

Blue state action

Some states are pursuing additional safeguards against federal election interference. 

For example, New Mexico lawmakers passed a bill that makes intentionally obstructing polling places a felony and prohibits the military or any armed federal personnel from polling locations.

The legislative push, concentrated in Democratic states, comes as Trump administration officials have sidestepped direct questions about whether troops or federal agents could be deployed to the polls.

“It’s yet another gotcha hypothetical,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a recent U.S. Senate hearing.

The Connecticut General Assembly passed legislation May 6 that imposes a 250-foot buffer zone around election sites where warrantless arrests and searches, use of force and ID checks by state or federal officers, including immigration agents, are banned. The measure also bans masked or concealed identities near polling places, among other provisions.

Connecticut state Rep. Matt Blumenthal, a Democrat who chairs the state House Government Administration & Elections Committee, said that if nothing happens during this fall’s elections, “I’ll say, ‘Good, it worked.’” 

The goal of the bill isn’t to create confrontations between Connecticut law enforcement and federal forces, but to deter intimidation in the first place, he said.

“We have a responsibility to protect all of our residents, but especially our voters, related to our elections — to prevent these sorts of tools of threat and intimidation and terror from being used to shape our political life,” Blumenthal said in an interview.

Connecticut state Sen. Rob Sampson, a Republican, said that he wouldn’t support abuse from the federal government. But Democrats, he said, were spinning a false narrative of voter intimidation for political purposes and attempting to distract from weaknesses in election security.

“In the last few years, I don’t always trust the results,” Sampson said on the Senate floor. “Now, some people will go out there and say, ‘Oh, you’re an election denier.’ I’m not saying that there’s tens of thousands of faulty or erroneous or fraudulent votes. I’m just saying that there’s definitely some.”

GOP elections bill stalled

Trump and Republicans in Congress say major action is needed to boost election confidence. 

At Trump’s urging, the U.S. House passed the SAVE America Act in February. In addition to requiring voters to show documents such as a passport or birth certificate that prove citizenship, the legislation also imposes ID requirements at the polls and would require states to bolster efforts to clean voter registration lists.

Polling suggests Americans support at least some of the bill’s provisions. A Politico poll conducted in April found 52% of Americans support requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, while 18% oppose. 

Democrats, election administration experts and some Republicans say the proposal would lead to chaos. Its provisions would take effect immediately, upending voting requirements potentially months or weeks before elections. Married women and others who have last names that don’t match their birth certificates could face additional obstacles registering to vote.

The SAVE America Act hasn’t advanced in the U.S. Senate. Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican and major proponent of the bill, attempted to add the measure onto a budget bill in April, but the Senate rejected it, 48-50.

“This doesn’t mean Trump and his allies in Congress will stop,” Héctor Sánchez Barba, president and CEO of Mi Familia Vota, a Latino voting rights group, said in a statement.

The Senate has since moved off the SAVE America Act and would need to hold a procedural vote to return to it. Whether that happens is in doubt, but Kennedy indicated to Punchbowl News that he intends to force another amendment vote later this month. His office didn’t respond to an email from States Newsroom seeking confirmation.

Postal Service 

Without the SAVE America Act, Trump’s options to legally restrict voting are limited. 

Trump signed an executive order in March attempting to limit the U.S. Postal Service’s delivery of ballots through the mail. The order also directs the Department of Homeland Security to create “state citizenship lists” that include the names of voting-age citizens in each state — effectively creating a national voter list.

But the order has come under legal attack from Democratic groups, a coalition of Democratic states and multiple voting rights organizations. Its opponents are hopeful that federal judges will soon block the directive like they did a March 2025 order that included a proof-of-citizenship requirement.

“I don’t have confidence that the Trump administration or Donald Trump will refrain from trying to interfere with our elections,” Blumenthal said. “But I have great confidence that the American people will stand up against it.”

The Chamber of Commerce used to stand for local businesses —  coffee shops, restaurants and hardware stores. The people who actually live and work here.

Until they didn’t.

The Montana Chamber, the Billings Chamber, and the Kalispell Chamber are fighting to keep dark money in Montana politics. Really. Not quietly. Not reluctantly. With gusto.

Because nothing promotes Montana like defending out-of-state corporations buying our elections.

It’s a bad look. And it’s earned.

Let’s be clear: Corporations using their financial muscle to influence elections isn’t new. Montana knows that story.  It is a tale of corruption and plunder. Butte has a permanent reminder with the Berkeley Pit, one of the largest superfund sites in the nation.

Mining interests once ran this state like a company town.

Legislators.  Judges.  Government Officials.  They sold their souls and wore “the Copper Collar.”

In 1912, Montana did something radical: people said “enough.” They passed the Corrupt Practices Act and banned corporate money from elections. It was a voter initiative.

Sadly, Washington ignored our history of corporate corruption, greed, and plunder.

In the Citizens United ruling, five genius Supreme Court justices held that corporations are “people” and money is “speech.”  Really.  How many lawyers did it take to make that up?

That’s not constitutional law. It’s legal fiction.  In Republican speak, it’s “alternative facts.”

Corporations are not people.  They’re not human. They don’t vote or lose sleep over Montana’s future. They don’t belong to the neighborhood PTA.

But, get this:  They may be owned by foreigners. They have perpetual life.  Their owners and managers get limited liability for corporate wrongs.

You can’t jail them. They aren’t citizens. They weren’t created by God. They are artificial and exist only because of provisions in our law. The first modern corporation was the Dutch East India Company, chartered in 1602.

But corporations’ money gives them a louder voice than you.  And, probably the private cell numbers of a number of elected officials.

That’s the problem.

When corporations fund campaigns, they don’t just participate—they dominate. Influence doesn’t require a paper bag of cash under the table. It’s subtler than that. Donations flow and elected officials get the message.

Money talks. Voters get put on hold.

And with dark money, we don’t even know who’s talking.  Think of the $300 million that funded campaigns for Tim Sheehy and Jon Tester.  That money didn’t come from you or me.  It was out-of-state dark money.

These “dark money” corporations have names that sound like a Norman Rockwell painting.  Names like “American Partners,”  or “The America the Beautiful Fund.”  The names are a subterfuge for entities designed to distort, mislead and direct votes where their funders want them to go.  Voters see the puppet, but the puppet master remains hidden.

It’s duplicitous.  It conceals their real purposes. We know from our history. It’s corruption.

Behind the wholesome names are hidden donors, hidden agendas, and a very visible impact: Ugly, ubiquitous attack ads, distorted messaging and elections shaped by people who don’t live here.

“Dark Money.”  It even sounds ominous. And it is.  We all hate it.

And for too long, we’ve all shrugged at it.

We’ve been anesthetized to think this is normal, acceptable, and the way it is done.

Good people in Montana are trying to get dark money out of our elections. Past political leaders, for example, former Gov. Marc Racicot and Sen. Jon Tester, are supporting “The Montana Plan.”  It’s a voter initiative (Ballot Initiative I-194) for the November ballot.  Read up on it.  It may save our democracy.

It’s a simple plan: Corporations aren’t people, and corporations can’t bankroll elections. That would become prohibited by law.

It’s radical, yet beautiful in its simplicity.

The plan defines corporations and similar entities as “artificial persons” with no inherent right to spend money in elections — as a matter of law.

It’s a gigantic “Not For Sale” sign —  with love from Montana voters.

So what did our friends in the Chambers do?  Did they embrace transparency?  Did they remember Montana’s legacy of political corruption?  No.

The Chambers went to the Montana Supreme Court —  not to defend local businesses, but to defend dark money.

They tried to block voters from even having a say.  The Chambers tried to stop this voter initiative from even being on the ballot.

Let that sink in: The Chambers went to Court to stop Montana voters from voting. Wow.

The Montana Supreme Court ruled against the Chambers and Attorney General Austin Knudsen.  We should all clap.

So it’s a fair question: Who exactly are the Chambers working for?

Because it’s not Montana voters and it’s not small businesses.

Corporate money in politics is corruption.

It was corruption in 1912.

It’s corruption now.

A Montana district court has ordered a temporary halt on a new law aimed at restricting Election Day voter registration and tightening the hours voters can register in the days leading up to it, while upholding a new voter identification law.

In a 22-page order on Friday, District Court Judge Adam Larsen granted a preliminary injunction against Senate Bill 490, a bill sponsored by Sen. Mike Cuffe, R-Eureka. With the ruling, the state’s existing rules stay in place, allowing voters to register to vote on Election Day as long as they are in line by the close of voting hours. 

“Unions like ours are organized around the fundamental right of every voice to be heard and every vote to count in our workplaces and society,” said Amanda Curtis, president of the Montana Federation of Public Employees, which brought the lawsuit against the state and Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen. “Montanans voted to protect same day voter registration a decade ago, and today MFPE members are proud to have defended this right from overreaching politicians.”

Cuffe’s bill had tightened the deadline for voters to register to vote to noon on the day of the election, and eliminated registration on the Monday before an election, but opened it up on the prior Saturday.

Cuffe also sponsored Senate Bill 276, which implemented voter ID laws. 

Under existing law, anyone in line at the ballot box by 8 p.m. on Election Day could register to vote, which in 2024 led to long lines at some precincts, including voters who waited until after midnight to register and cast their ballots in Gallatin County.

Cuffe cited the Gallatin County example in an opinion piece published by Lee Newspapers last spring, as a reason for passing the bill. 

“The intent is to smooth out the process and avoid votes being cast many hours beyond the intended closing of the polls at 8 p.m.,” Cuffe wrote. 

But MFPE sued, pointing to a Montana Supreme Court decision from 2024 that struck down a law passed in 2021 eliminating Election Day voter registration. 

Larsen cited that decision in his order, writing that “For nearly two decades prior to the enactment of SB 490, Montana voters have utilized election day registration throughout the entirety of Election Day,” and it has become “wildly popular,” and its use has grown over time.

“The Supreme Court also found that the number of voters late registering on Election Day is nearly equal to the number of voters who late register during the preceding 29 days combined,” Larsen wrote in his order. “Election Day Registration serves as a critical safeguard for Montana voters who encounter issues with their voter registration.”

Larsen also wrote the law as written only applies to voters registering for federal elections, but allows registration for state elections for all of Election Day, creating a “bifurcated system,” which would impose additional burdens on election officials. 

He also said that some Montana precincts do not open until noon on Election Day, which means voters in those areas would be wholly deprived of same-day registration. 

Senate Bill 490 would “disproportionately impact certain groups of voters, including Native American voters and young voters,” the order states. 

A group of tribal nations, including the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the Blackfeet Nation, the Fort Belknap Indian Community, and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and tribal advocacy nonprofit Western Native Voice, joined the lawsuit challenging SB 490 as intervenors.

Larsen found that the state did not present “competent evidence demonstrating that SB 490 reduces administrative burdens or improves election efficiency,” and likewise did not present “evidence of voter fraud associated with Election Day Registration.”

“The State of Montana could not provide a compelling government interest justifying this voter suppression law because there simply isn’t one,” said Alex Rate, deputy and legal director at ACLU of Montana, which represented the tribal nations and Western Native Voice. “Election Day voter registration is secure, it’s fair, and – with this ruling – it continues to be protected in Montana.”

Last August, the Republican National Committee and the Montana Republican Party filed to intervene in the lawsuit, saying a ruling declaring the laws unconstitutional would “undermine Republican voter confidence in the electoral system and create administrative problems that could undermine Republican turnout.”

The State GOP and the RNC did not respond to requests for comment on Monday. 

With Larsen’s ruling, “Election Day registration shall remain available to all eligible voters for the full duration of Election Day,” for the state’s primary election in June. 

The Secretary of State’s Office recently sent out mailers to voters to inform them of new election laws, including changes to voter registration dates. The information about federal registration ending at noon on Election Day is no longer accurate given the district court ruling.

A spokesperson for Jacobsen’s office said the voter outreach program had been planned months ago, and was timed to hit mailboxes at the same time as ballots. 

“This type of mass confusion is why courts shouldn’t get involved when the election is already underway,” said Richie Melby, pointing out that the Supreme Court has blocked district court rulings in similar scenarios. “You can see why it’s challenging for election officials to fully prepare for an election with the back-and-forth judicial tennis match instigated by East Coast activists.” 

Voter ID law stands

The lawsuit also challenged Senate Bill 276, which Cuffe also sponsored, but Larsen ruled an injunction blocking the law was not necessary. 

The law changed photo identification requirements for voting in Montana, including expanding the variety of ID options allowed to include tribal photo ID cards, military IDs, U.S. Passports, driver’s licenses and student ID cards.

While previous legislation invoking voter ID laws has been considered unconstitutional by the courts, Cuffe said his bill was specifically aimed at voter identification at the polls, and not voter eligibility requirements. 

His bill eliminated a requirement that voters with student IDs provide proof of residence at a polling place, which had been part of a previous law overturned in 2024, but the law added a provision that an ID must be “current, valid and readable.” 

“The evidence currently before the Court does not establish that any eligible voter has yet been denied the right to vote pursuant to SB 276,” Larsen wrote in his order. 

Compared to the law that changed registration rules, Larsen said that this law does not “eliminate a voting mechanism” or prevent eligible voters from taking part in the process.  

Plaintiffs and intervenors in the case are represented by Graybill Law Firm, Elias Law Group, and Upper Seven Law, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Native American Rights Fund.

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction Regarding Implementation of SB490 (2)

A federal judge said Monday the Montana Public Service Commission can’t prohibit Commissioner Brad Molnar from participating in the controversial NorthWestern Energy merger hearing in person.

Last week on a 3-2 vote, the PSC voted to adopt a report that found Molnar had committed professional misconduct along with a recommendation he be sanctioned, including being prohibited from working in the building.

An internal “response team” found Molnar had committed “serious misconduct,” damaged the agency, and cost the PSC tens of thousands of dollars.

But Molnar has raised concerns about the impacts of a proposed merger between NorthWestern Energy and Black Hills Corp, the hearing starts Tuesday, and his lawyer said the PSC’s timing is suspect.

In a case filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Helena, Molnar alleged First Amendment retaliation and asked for a temporary restraining order, and in an order the same day, federal Judge Donald Molloy said Molnar may participate in the hearing in person.

The judge granted the motion to temporarily stop Commissioners Jeff Welborn, Jennifer Fielder and Annie Bukacek from excluding Molnar from the hearing room for the duration of the merger proceedings at least through May 22.

The judge said Molnar has “raised serious questions” about whether the decision to ban him from the hearing room constitutes First Amendment retaliation. The order pointed to his criticisms of the PSC and “how it permitted closed-door meetings with NorthWestern Energy officials.”

In the order, the judge said Molnar argued that he would not be able to effectively represent his constituents if he attended the hearing by video.

“Molnar has persuasively argued, at least at this stage, that remote attendance does not obviate this harm as he ‘cannot consult with staff in real time, cannot observe witness demeanor and hallway dynamics, and cannot confer quietly with counsel at the table as testimony unfolds,’” the judge said.

The judge granted the motion against Welborn, Fielder and Bukacek, the three commissioners who voted to adopt the report with recommendations for sanctions against Molnar. Welborn and Fielder are the PSC’s president and vice president, respectively.

The PSC regulates monopoly utilities, including NorthWestern Energy. It is made up of five elected commissioners, currently all Republican; Commissioner Randy Pinocci joined Molnar to vote against adopting the misconduct report.

The judge said Molnar “has also raised serious questions going to the merits.”

The order said Molnar publicly criticized the PSC “on a variety of issues,” including its handling of complaints against him; he was physically barred from the PSC building “days before a major hearing regarding a large utility company merger,” and his complaint raises questions about whether those actions are connected.

“On the one hand, Defendants seek to exclude Molnar’s physical presence in the building because of his alleged inappropriate behavior,” the order said. “On the other hand, an elected official has been physically barred from attending a major hearing regarding the future of one of Montana’s largest utility companies.

“Permitting Molnar to attend and participate in that hearing — and no more — strikes an appropriate balance given the short time frame and the matters at stake.”

The report the PSC adopted found Molnar had engaged in inappropriate conduct in the workplace, including by making unwelcome sex-based comments and retaliating against those who filed complaints against him.

It also found agency managers and PSC leadership had warned him and tried to help him correct his behavior, but he was impervious to advice and trainings and met them with “belligerence and defiance.”

Molnar said the PSC was biased against him, and he was never presented with specific allegations, such as times and places, that would allow him the chance to refute the claims.

The order said if the hearing runs past May 22, Molnar will need to “seek additional relief from the court,” or ask for an extension.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday nominated Cameron Hamilton to run the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a former acting chief who was fired in 2025 shortly after he told a congressional panel FEMA should continue to exist.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will likely schedule a hearing in the coming weeks for Hamilton to testify about his goals for the agency as part of the confirmation process. 

The panel will then schedule a vote on whether to send his nomination to the floor, where Hamilton will need to secure approval from a majority of senators before he would become FEMA administrator. 

Taking on that role will be no easy task, especially since Trump has spoken repeatedly during his second administration about reducing the size and scope of the agency. 

“We want to wean off of FEMA and we want to bring it down to the state level,” Trump said in June. “We’re moving it back to the states so the governors can handle it. That’s why they’re governors. Now, if they can’t handle it, they shouldn’t be governor.”

The FEMA review council that Trump created to review the agency submitted its report last week recommending states shoulder more of the cost and responsibility of disaster relief.

Not ‘in the best interest’ to kill FEMA

The previous disconnect between Trump and Hamilton about whether FEMA should continue led to Hamilton being removed from his role leading the agency last year. 

Hamilton testified before a House panel in May 2025 that he personally did “not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.”

“Having said that, I’m not in a position to make decisions and impact outcomes on whether or not a determination, such as consequential as that, should be made,” he said at the time. “That is a conversation that should be had between the president of the United States and this governing body on identifying the exact ways and methodologies, in which, what is prudent for federal investment, and what is not.”

One day later he was ousted as the senior official performing the duties of the administrator at FEMA.

David Richardson has been the senior official performing the duties of FEMA administrator ever since. He was previously the assistant secretary of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office at the Department of Homeland Security.

Podcast tell-all

Hamilton detailed his time leading FEMA on an episode of the “Disaster Tough” podcast that aired in September, saying he had developed a plan to address that the agency had “become too bureaucratic.”

“I was very clear and poignant that the cause of most of the problems in FEMA is because we keep putting too much crap in FEMA’s rucksack that never should have been there,” he said. 

Hamilton then spoke about the Shelter and Services Program, which provides grant funding to organizations that help to house, feed and assist migrants released by the Department of Homeland Security. 

He argued that isn’t an “emergency management requirement” and that “FEMA has become a functional multi-tool.”

Housing was a “prime example” of where another federal department, like Housing and Urban Development, could take over some of the tasks that FEMA currently handles, he said. 

“I said, we need to aggressively talk to HUD about them having a larger stakehold in that particular missions field because they are more uniquely suited,” he said. 

But Hamilton insisted he was not supportive of plans to completely eliminate the agency. 

“I was not hired to abolish FEMA. That was never a part of the conversation and that’s never something that I would have agreed with,” he said on the podcast. “And I was very clear, I wanted some reform. I wanted to cut wasteful spending. I wanted to downsize the agency. There’s no denying that. And I think most of those things could be done wisely and properly.”

Any offloading of responsibilities from the federal government to states, he said, would include “a gradual phasing out.”

“We needed to give the states some time to see what that entails and to respond accordingly,” he said. “Not just, ‘Hey, the water is now shut off. You’re on your own.’ That’s not wise. That’s not being a good partner.”

‘I wanted to choke some people’

Hamilton also discussed what happened before and after he testified in front of a House subcommittee a year ago, including that he was polygraphed in March.

“One of the more difficult things for me to deal with was when my character was being attacked, and when I was being accused of being a liar and a leaker, and I was polygraphed for it,” he said. “DHS requested that I be polygraphed. And they said in their statement, you know, my character, judgment, my stability, my ethics were all in question.” 

Asked by the podcast host if he wanted to put on his “Navy SEAL hat” when that was happening, Hamilton responded, “I wanted to choke some people, that’s for sure.”

Hamilton said he knew that he was about to be fired and that on the day he testified before Congress, officials “notified my security that my access was eliminated. So before the testimony, I knew it was coming, and I knew it was coming weeks in advance.” 

Later in the episode, Hamilton said he knew he would be asked during the hearing about Trump’s comments regarding FEMA and spoke with former FEMA Administrator Pete Gaynor to work through how best to answer the question. 

The two then “came to the agreement” that Hamilton would say, “it’s not in the best interest of the American people.” 

“I cannot get behind this position that abolishing FEMA is the answer,” he said. “There are so many things that we can do before we go that extreme and put the American people at what I believe to be extreme risk unnecessarily.”

Ballots for Montana’s June 2 primary began to hit voters’ mailboxes this weekend.

According to the Secretary of State’s website, 509,399 absentee ballots were mailed to voters. As of Monday morning, 358 voters had already returned their ballots.

“Montana’s 2026 Primary Election is well underway, and the Montana Election Team is honored to serve our voters,” Secretary of state Christi Jacobsen said in a press release. “As a reminder, Montanans can view their sample ballot, track their absentee ballot, confirm their voter registration information, and much more at VoteMT.gov.”

Voted ballots must be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day, Tuesday, June 2nd.

The Montana Election Team reminds absentee voters to sign, date, and add their birth year when returning their absentee ballot. County election officials provide instructions in the ballot packet, and more information is also available online at https://votemt.gov/absentee-ballot/.

WASHINGTON — The man who allegedly attacked the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last month pleaded not guilty Monday in federal court to four criminal charges, including attempting to assassinate the president of the United States.

Cole Tomas Allen, 31, of California, appeared before U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden in Washington, D.C., to be arraigned on charges that he tried to take the president’s life, which carries a possible life sentence, and that he assaulted a U.S. officer, transported a firearm and ammunition across state lines with intent to commit a felony and discharged a deadly weapon during a violent crime.

U.S. Department of Justice officials obtained the indictment on May 5.

Allen’s public defenders delivered the plea to McFadden as they stood on either side of Allen, who wore an orange jumpsuit and shackles and was accompanied by two law enforcement officers.

The arraignment comes just over two weeks after Allen allegedly rushed a U.S. Secret Service security checkpoint and fired a weapon one level above the ballroom where President Donald Trump, numerous Cabinet officials and thousands of other administration officials, journalists and lawmakers were attending the annual event.

Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet officials safely evacuated from the April 25 dinner.

A Secret Service agent, referred to in court documents as V.G., was hit in his protective vest by a bullet, but court documents do not specify who fired the shot. The agent was uninjured.

According to an affidavit signed April 27 by an FBI agent, Officer V.G. fired five rounds from his service weapon in Allen’s direction, but did not hit him.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, who attended the dinner, and government prosecutors argued Allen traveled across the country by train “armed to the teeth” and was willing to “commit a mass shooting inside a room full of the highest ranking officials in the U.S. government,” according to a memo filed prior to the superseding indictment. 

Prosecutors’ conflict of interest?

Allen’s federal public defenders argued Pirro and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche should recuse themselves from the case to avoid a conflict of interest, as both have “made statements indicating that they were witnesses to events,” according to motion filed Thursday.

“These are individuals alleging they are victims,” defense attorney Eugene Ohm said in court Monday, adding it would be “wholly inappropriate for a victim … to be the individuals who are prosecuting.”

Additionally, Ohm said Blanche “has a very close relationship” with the alleged target of the crime — Trump. Blanche was Trump’s personal defense lawyer prior to the president appointing him to the Department of Justice.

Discovery questions

McFadden said the situation would be “very surprising” if either Blanche or Pirro were called to testify at trial, but Ohm said there could be a risk if prosecutors filed additional charges after discovery, the pretrial investigative stage of a prosecution.

Ohm said the defense has not yet been provided with any discovery. 

McFadden gave government prosecutors two weeks to respond to the defense’s request that Pirro and Blanche recuse themselves.

“It would be helpful to have some definitive view” on whether they “see themselves as victims,” McFadden told DOJ prosecutor Charles Jones.

McFadden scheduled the next hearing for June 29, by which time he told prosecutors he “will be hoping we’ve made substantial progress on discovery.”

WASHINGTON — The federal student loan system is set to see a dramatic overhaul beginning this summer, and critics warn it likely will make loans more expensive and difficult to obtain for borrowers — driving them to private lenders or altering their plans for higher education.

Among the major changes are new loan limits for graduate and professional students, a restructured repayment system where new borrowers will have only two plans to choose from and the elimination of a key loan program for graduate and professional students that allowed for unlimited borrowing.

The provisions — most of which will take effect July 1 — stem from congressional Republicans’ mega tax and spending cut bill that President Donald Trump signed into law last year. 

The U.S. Department of Education finalized regulations, published May 1, that implement sweeping changes outlined in the GOP’s “big, beautiful” law. The department received more than 80,000 public comments before the rule was finalized. 

Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said that “at a high level,” the reforms center on “lowering the cost of college, simplifying student loan repayment and restoring accountability to the federal student lending system,” during an April 30 call with reporters regarding the new regulations. 

The average federal student loan debt balance stands at $39,547, according to the Education Data Initiative.

As July 1 approaches, here’s a closer look at some of the biggest changes coming to the federal student loan system: 

Elimination of Grad PLUS 

The Grad PLUS program, which allowed for graduate and professional students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance, will soon be eliminated under the package and unavailable for new borrowers.

“If you are currently borrowing Grad PLUS loans, so you borrowed Grad PLUS loans before July 1, you will be allowed to continue using Grad PLUS until you finish your program, or until three years have expired, basically whichever is sooner,” said Preston Cooper, senior fellow in higher education policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank.

“Current students are grandfathered in — it will only be new graduate students, as of this fall, after July 1, who will be subject to the new loan limits,” Cooper said. 

New borrowing caps 

The package also sets forth new annual and aggregate loan limits for graduate and professional students, along with parents who take out federal student loans for dependent undergraduate students. 

Graduate student loans will be capped at $20,500 annually, with a $100,000 aggregate limit. 

Parent PLUS borrowers will have an annual cap of $20,000 and an aggregate cap of $65,000 per dependent. 

Professional student loans will have a $50,000 annual limit and an aggregate cap of $200,000. 

The programs that fall within the department’s “professional” category and are subject to that larger loan cap include: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology and clinical psychology. 

The department clarified in a fact sheet on the finalized regulations that the “professional” student classifications “do not express a value judgment about the importance of any occupation or field” but instead serve a “loan-administration function.” 

The agency has received immense pushback from groups representing people in fields that do not fall under the department’s definition and will thus be subject to lower annual and lifetime borrowing caps. 

Incoming repayment options 

In another major shift, the regulations replace prior repayment options with two new plans — the Repayment Assistance Plan, or RAP, and the Tiered Standard plan — both of which will launch July 1.

RAP is an income-based repayment plan that “waives unpaid interest for borrowers who make on-time payments that do not fully cover accruing interest,” per the department’s fact sheet. 

Balances under the plan will also “decline with each on-time payment, as unpaid interest is fully waived and the Department then reduces principal by an amount equal to the borrower’s payment, up to $50,” per the agency. 

The Tiered Standard plan offers fixed monthly payments, ranging from a 10-year to 25-year period, depending on the outstanding principal balance of the borrower. 

‘A lot more expensive’

“The upshot is that loan repayment is going to get a lot more expensive for almost everyone, and for some people, it’s going to get significantly more expensive, and the transition is also going to be difficult for a lot of people to manage,” Michele Zampini, associate vice president for federal policy and advocacy at the Institute for College Access & Success, told States Newsroom.

Zampini, whose organization aims to advance affordability, accountability and equity in higher education, said she thinks “there will be a lot of students who will have to turn to the private loan market, who otherwise would have been able to cover their costs through the (Grad PLUS) program.”

Victoria Jackson, assistant director of higher education policy at the nonprofit policy and advocacy group EdTrust, said that with the new loan limits and “drastic cuts to aid availability” in the regulations, “you would really hope that it would come with other, more affordable and better forms of financial aid.” 

“And what they’ve done is just created this vacuum that right now can really only be filled with private loans, which are costlier and riskier for students, or students are just not going to go,” Jackson said.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues its efforts to eliminate the Department of Education, including through a series of interagency agreements that transfer several of its responsibilities to other departments. 

Under the most recent agreement, the Treasury Department will take over Education’s responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt — the first step in a multiphase process toward Treasury taking on Education’s entire, roughly $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio.

Transition to new system

Zampini noted that, when it comes to the incoming student loan regulations, she does not have confidence in the Education Department’s “ability at this moment to successfully manage the transition without a lot of issues, as far as servicing and as far as account tracking and plan enrollment and things like that.” 

Jackson, of EdTrust, said that “by weakening the federal financial aid system, I think there’s a weakening of our higher education system and making it more difficult for low-income students, students of color and other marginalized students to access graduate education.”

She added that “people who complete those degrees tend to have more financial security in the future — they earn more over their lifetimes and, on markers of financial success and opportunity, do better.” 

“I think this is one prong of a plan of undermining our overall higher education system.” 

The recent congressional battle over mining near Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness uncovered a disappointing political reality: Despite bipartisan public support for protecting public lands and waters, the majority of U.S. congress members still prioritize short-sighted resource extraction and development over long-term gains of conservation. House Resolution 140, recently passed by both chambers of Congress, invokes unprecedented use of the Congressional Review Act to overturn the 20-year mining ban, which previously protected 225,504 acres in the Boundary Waters region.

This landscape demonstrates how public lands protections and healthy outdoor economies are inextricably linked. The outdoor recreation economy in northeastern Minnesota supports more than 17,000 jobs and contributes more than $1 billion in annual sales. Sulfide-ore copper mining in the region will decimate local economies and put thousands of jobs at risk. A 2018 Harvard Economics study found that the mineral withdrawal will generate stronger and more sustainable economic benefits over the long-term than short term and toxic sulfide-ore copper mining could. And as the national and local outdoor economies have grown even more in recent years, so has the potential economic loss if mining were to move forward in this region.

While this issue is deeply important to Minnesota communities and businesses – it goes far beyond state lines. The national $1.2 trillion outdoor recreation economy depends on durable protections for landscapes across the U.S. Protecting lands and waters delivers far greater and more enduring value to the American economy, which supports jobs and businesses for generations (data shows that $351 million is added to the U.S. economy every day from recreation on federal lands and waters). Resource extraction, on the other hand, provides only temporary benefits, often afforded to international companies. Twin Metals, the company wanting to build a copper-nickel mine immediately upstream of the Boundary Waters, for example, is owned by Chilean mining giant Antofagasta that would send its metal concentrates to China.

To make matters worse, the vote on the Boundary Waters sets an extremely dangerous precedent for rolling back protections on public lands. The Congressional Review Act had never been used to rescind a Resource Management Plan or a Public Land Order (land withdrawal)” prior to this administration. Now that it’s been used in this manner several times, there’s no telling where it will end. All of our beloved public lands could be on the chopping block.

The evidence is as clear as the Boundary Waters themselves that American businesses – large and small – will lose when mining operations are permitted near the Boundary Waters.

More than 100 American businesses, led by The Conservation Alliance and Outdoor Industry Association, fought hard against this attack on the Boundary Waters. The groups sent letters signed by businesses to more than 50 elected officials, facilitated meetings between congressional offices and their business constituents, and partnered with on-the-ground organizations to amplify their message and mobilize customers to take action. Congressional representatives had ample opportunity to hear the economic and business argument for protecting the Boundary Waters – but they didn’t listen.

The votes to advance House Joint Resolution 140 were disappointing – but no votes were as disappointing as those made by some of the members of the House Public Lands Caucus and the Senate Stewardship Caucus, whose missions are to protect public lands and expand outdoor access. Despite caucus members hearing strong opposition from their on-the-ground business constituencies, many voted in favor of mining over land conservation. Some senior members of the caucuses even went so far as to whip votes in favor of the bill, claiming that because the mine would not be located in the wilderness area itself, mining is an appropriate use. Unfortunately, several other caucus members followed suit.

American businesses rely on supposed public lands champions to follow through with their promises to “promote policies that advance conservation and public access.” Instead, their votes in support of H.R. 140 will decimate local tourism and recreation businesses and could cost as many as thousands of jobs and millions in income. We urge our lawmakers to rethink their stance, consider the facts, and listen to their constituents at their next opportunity to determine the fate of a critical landscape like the Boundary Waters.

This opinion piece was written by Paul Hendricks, Executive Director at The Conservation Alliance, with contributions from: Amy Beck, President, Oboz Footwear, Bozeman, Montana; Wes Carter, President, Atlantic Packaging, Charleston, South Carolina; Benjamin Colvin, CEO & Founder, Devil’s Foot Beverage, Asheville, North Carolina; Todd Frank, Owner of The Trail Head, Trail Head River Sports, SOAR inflatables, Missoula Montana; Mollie Merkle, Publisher and Chief Operating Officer at AdventureKEEN, Birmingham, Alabama; Steve Piragis, Owner, Piragis Northwoods Company, Ely, Minnesota; Linnea Swenson Tellekson, President, Sven-Saws, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Brian Vaughan, Co-Founder and CEO, GU Energy Labs, Berkeley, California.

Legislators took a step this week toward issuing a subpoena to Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen for information about voter records her office provided to the federal government.

Rep. Kelly Kortum, D-Bozeman, made the motion to direct staff to draft the subpoena, arguing Montanans value their privacy rights, protected in the Montana Constitution.

“I know a lot of Montanans don’t like the federal government knowing what video games they play, or if they own guns, or how often they vote,” Kortum said. “So I would ask in this case that we trust but verify, because we don’t know.”

On a 6-5 vote, members of the State Administration and Veterans Affairs Committee directed staff to draft the subpoena to require the Secretary of State to provide the information her office turned over to the federal government.

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Justice has pressed states, including Montana, for full voter rolls, citing federal law.

The DOJ called for “unredacted voter rolls,” which would include the last four digits of a person’s Social Security Number and their driver’s license numbers.

Jacobsen’s office turned over some information to the DOJ last year, but for months, her office has not answered questions about what it provided.

The vote this week came after the committee decided in April to make a last ditch effort to see if Jacobsen would provide the information voluntarily. She did not.

Austin James, chief legal counsel for the Secretary of State, has told lawmakers he’s not sharing details because he wants to avoid a lawsuit, citing litigation in other states.

At the meeting this week, Kortum said he wanted to see the headers in the table or spreadsheet the Secretary of State shared with the federal government.

Kortum said the idea would be to compare those headers against the state’s constitutional right to privacy to see if legislators need to tighten up privacy protections, and the clock was ticking.

“Let’s get this data before the elections start happening,” Kortum said.

Sen. Theresa Manzella, chairwoman, and Rep. Kathy Love, both Hamilton Republicans, joined Kortum and all other Democrats to support the motion. The five other Republicans opposed it.

The committee will review the subpoena once it’s drafted, and issuing it will require another vote.

Andria Hardin, with Legislative Services, said if the committee issues the subpoena, the Secretary of State may file litigation to quash it and include a request for attorneys’ fees. Hardin said she couldn’t estimate the cost.

Manzella said the money would come from the committee’s budget, but she believes the answer to the question is worth pursuing because legislators need clarity on their Constitutional responsibility to safeguard the election process.

Although the committee can issue the subpoena, Hardin said the Montana Supreme Court set a high bar for one branch of government to seek information from another branch. In other words, she said, legislators can’t go on “a hunting expedition,” but they need to show how the information will support future legislation.

Rep. Peter Strand, D-Bozeman, said he supported the demand for information because he did not want to set a precedent that the Secretary of State didn’t have to answer questions from the oversight committee.

The committee has the responsibility to monitor the Secretary of State’s Office.

“We’re being gaslit here,” Strand said.

Former Montana state Sen. Jen Gross said she was the person who lodged a harassment complaint that began a 2018 investigation into Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy. 

Writing in a public post on Substack, Gross publicly revealed her identity for the first time, saying she was speaking up because Windy Boy — who suspended and then unsuspended his campaign for Congress following new allegations of sexual abuse made public by the Democratic Party — had referred to the previous investigation as “rumors and slanderous allegations.”

“It was not a rumor. It was an investigation. And the findings were substantiated,” Gross wrote.

Gross wrote about harassment allegations she made that were substantiated in 2018. Last month, Democratic Party Chairwoman Shannon O’Brien said the party recently learned of separate allegations of sexual abuse stemming from 2002.

Gross said that she was alerted by Legislative Services in April that the media, which included the Daily Montanan, had requested copies of the 2018 harassment complaint report that had been reported on by the Associated Press at the time. 

The report, which is heavily redacted, followed an investigation into inappropriate text messages Windy Boy had sent to Gross. 

According to Gross, she had emailed Windy Boy telling him the messages were inappropriate and needed to stop, he then issued a written apology, and the matter was referred to Legislative Services. 

“Their attorneys retained an outside investigator …  (he) interviewed me, interviewed Windy Boy, reviewed the full text-message exchange, reviewed the email I sent him, reviewed his written apology, and interviewed at least one additional witness. The investigation was completed in March 2018. The findings were substantiated,” Gross wrote.

She focused her post on that last word — that the findings were substantiated, and not simply allegations. 

“Substantiated does not mean rumored,” Gross wrote. “It does not mean alleged. It does not mean whispered about in hallways at the Capitol. It means a sanctioned legislative investigation found that the conduct occurred as reported.”

When the harassment investigation against Windy Boy was reported by the AP, he called it “vilification” and a smear campaign. 

Gross said she decided to come forward as the person in the complaint after Windy Boy unsuspended his campaign for Congress. 

“When the man at the center of a Legislative Services investigation calls that record ‘rumors,’ and when he does it while running for federal office, the silence of the person who filed the complaint becomes its own kind of statement,” Gross wrote. 

Windy Boy did not respond to calls or emails requesting comment. 

In a statement, Senate President Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, thanked Gross for “coming forward and publicly identifying herself to help hold Sen. Windy Boy accountable for his yearslong pattern of sexual harassment. He needs to resign.”

Democratic Party Chairwoman Shannon O’Brien announced in April that Windy Boy, a Democratic lawmaker from Box Elder, was dropping out of the race. Her statement said that the party had had learned of “serious sexual abuse” allegations against Windy Boy. 

Helena attorney Brian Miller, who is also running for Congress as a Democrat against Windy Boy in the primary election, told the Daily Montanan he had learned of the allegations against Windy Boy and been in contact with a Pennsylvania woman who said Windy Boy sent sexually explicit photos to her underage daughter in 2002. 

Miller began representing the victim and her mother after Windy Boy dropped out. 

Windy Boy had originally cited his health and grief over losing family members as the reason he suspended his campaign, but made no mention of that in his announcement that he was “moving forward” with the campaign. 

In his announcement, he called the allegations a “political ambush.”

Prior to Gross’ allegations in 2018, the Montana Legislature did not have a well defined policy for investigating harassment in and around the Legislature. State law gives the Legislature the power to police its own members and set its own rules. In 2019, the Legislature passed an eight-page policy outlining a more comprehensive process that covers the investigative process and removal of those who violate it.

2019.02.21.scanned redacted and released report

For the third time in a row, a conservative group along with a Republican legislator have had their challenge to the state’s abortion protection law, now enshrined in the Montana Constitution, shot down by a court. 

This decision was the first by a district court, and was an attempt to litigate the constitutional amendment voters approved in 2024, which allows abortion up to the point of fetal viability.  

Yellowstone County District Judge Thomas Pardy ruled against state Rep. Amy Regier and the Montana Life Defense Fund, which had made several attempts to challenge the way the amendment, known as Constitutional Initiative 128, was placed on the ballot. 

Ultimately, the measure received overwhelming support from Montana voters, with 345,070 votes in favor, while 252,300 were opposed. 

The Montana Life Defense Fund had twice filed challenges with the Montana Supreme Court, alleging that the process used by supporters and state election officials violated the Montana Constitution. Because the Montana Supreme Court hears challenges to the constitutional amendment process, those challenges are often heard at the state’s highest court.

However, in both cases, the Montana Supreme Court said that while the issue focused on the already-approved constitutional amendment, Regier and the fund had not provided a reason why a district court would be unable to decide the matter. Moreover, since the amendment had passed and it became law, there was no impending election or deadline that would necessitate expediting the matter in the courts. 

The justices also pointed out that even if a district court judge decided against the Montana Life Defense Fund and Regier, they’d still be able to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. So, the fund took the case to Yellowstone County District Court where Pardy issued the ruling. 

It’s unclear whether they’ll challenge Pardy’s ruling.

As in the other cases, the fund argued that the constitutional amendment was invalid because the text of the entire initiative was not printed on the ballot, thereby robbing voters of the ability to fully consider the measure.

However, a five-page ruling by Pardy said that the rules for a constitutional initiative do not require the full printing of the text on the ballot itself. In analyzing the Montana Constitution, Pardy said the full text is required to be submitted to the Secretary of State, but is not required to be printed in full on the ballot. The judge reasoned that if the framers of the 1972 state constitution would have wanted the full text, they would have required it.

“There is no factual basis upon which the petitioner could recover based on the claim before this court,” Pardy said in his order.

Dr. Samuel Dickman, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, Forward Montana and the American Civil Liberties of Montana had intervened in the lawsuit to argue, along with the State of Montana, that the initiative passed muster.

In addition to legal representation by the ACLU of Montana, Raph Graybill and Rachel Parker of the Graybill Law Firm led the legal efforts to respond to Regier and the Montana Life Defense Fund.

“In November 2024, Montanans went to the polls and overwhelmingly voted ‘yes’ to keep personal medical decisions – especially those related to pregnancy and abortion – between a patient and their doctor,” said Akilah Deernose, the executive director of the ACLU of Montana. “Today’s ruling builds on that electoral victory. But if the past few years have taught us anything, it’s that the struggle for civil rights is never truly over.” 

Ray Curtis used to teach government classes at Flathead Valley Community College in Kalispell. The retired teacher, who now lives in Missoula, was back on campus this week just a few doors down from his old classroom. 

“I felt like I was back to teaching again in that room,” Curtis told the Daily Montanan. “I was on that stage giving people information that they need.”

But it wasn’t college students that Curtis was instructing in the finer points of the Constitution of the way he understood government is meant to work — it was a room full of voters and two of the three candidates who, along with Curtis, are running for the Republican nomination for the Western U.S. House seat. 

While talk radio host Aaron Flint and Flathead County Republican Central Committee Chairman Al Olszewski (Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen, also running in the primary, did not attend the event on Monday) have faced each other on the debate stage before and largely agree on positions, hewing closely to national party lines and avoiding criticizing the current administration. 

But to their right on stage, Curtis offered critiques of major Republican talking points such as pushing back against the need to increase election security and unilaterally supporting the war in Iran, positioning himself as a moderate option in the race. 

He’s banking on voters being willing to educate themselves about candidates and their policies. 

Curtis will be the first to say he isn’t a politician, he’s a teacher who spent decades teaching government classes at the high school and college level trying to instill an understanding of the constitution in generations of Montanans. 

Now he’s taking that same approach on the road in his long-shot run for Congress, to the point of assigning homework for his fellow candidates.

“I hope you get the impression that I’m running for something,” Curtis said in an interview. “I feel like the three candidates that put their name on the ballot aren’t much of a choice compared to somebody in the middle.” 

---

The homework assignment Curtis has is for all Montana politicians – and citizens —  to watch the final speech by former President Ronald Reagan. The remarks open with some sentiments about America’s willingness to accept immigrants and being a beacon of freedom and opportunity to the world as “one of the most important sources of America’s greatness.”

Reagan’s remarks then pivot to their main purpose — awarding the Medal of Freedom to former Montana Senator Mike Mansfield. 

“A Republican giving this to a Democrat, we need more of that,” Curtis said. 

Curtis believes a willingness to engage in bipartisanship discussions and call out wrongs within his own party, and his center-of-the-road ideology resonates with a swath of Montanans who feel alienated by the views further out on the left and right of the political spectrum. 

Curtis taught at all three public high schools in Missoula, as well as stints at Flathead Valley Community College and Missoula College. 

While teaching, he said he always tried to present himself as relatively apolitical to his students, focusing on the structure of government as written out in the U.S. Constitution and the guiding principles set out by founding members of the early nation. 

“I always took great pride in the fact that students at the end of the semester would say they didn’t know what my bias was,” Curtis said. “We all have biases, but I’m not in love with political parties, kind of in the way Washington wasn’t either. We should be more American than anything else.”

But Curtis has always found himself to align closer to Republican principles — following the rule of the law, fiscal responsibility, and protecting individual liberties.

He doesn’t see those ideas reflected by the current Republican party compared to the one he used to teach about when covering politics in the classroom. 

“I align with the Republicans in the past — Lincoln, Reagan — the dinners that Republicans have are named for them,” Curtis said. “Do we not believe what Lincoln believed? And Reagan had the last successful immigration policy. But I’m especially an Eisenhower Republican.”

Curtis invokes Eisenhower — or “Ike” — repeatedly when talking about successful Republican policies from the past, such as the former president’s warnings against the military-industrial complex and desires to cut the nation’s defense budget to focus on domestic programs, or the value of working with allies around the world. 

“We’ve lost our closest allies in the world, they don’t trust us and it’s going to be hard to get it back,” Curtis said.  

Curtis is willing to criticize Republicans where he sees fit. 

He says that he is critical of Democrats for drastically increasing federal spending when in power, but then is disillusioned when a Republican Congress refuses to rein spending in, and instead adds to a deficit.  He does not believe Trump nominated the best people for many cabinet-level positions and he does not believe election security is the major problem national Republicans say it is. 

The SAVE America Act is a piece of legislation championed by Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration that would require proof of citizenship such as a passport or birth certificate in order to register to vote. But it “fixes nothing,” Curtis said, because elections are already safe — something he’s seen firsthand by volunteering as a poll worker. 

Many of these statements draw disagreements from Curtis’ primary opponents, but he says politics shouldn’t be about falling in line or being considered the enemy. 

Curtis is also critical of the war with Iran, which he said is a blatant example of the disintegration of separation of powers. He thinks the war wouldn’t have been necessary if Trump hadn’t pulled out of the Iran Deal in his first term, and said it would likely take years to broker a new comprehensive agreement. 

“The people didn’t have a say in this war, it was a unilateral decision,” Curtis said. “Citizens every day are seeing when the dial on the gas pump spins around, that this has repercussions.”

Curtis said that during his tenure in the classroom, he felt he had done everything possible to demonstrate to his students how to engage in democracy, except putting his name on the ballot. 

He said since he announced his campaign, he’s heard from numerous former students who have offered their support for what he’s doing. 

Former colleagues have also expressed support for his run, including Sue Babcock, who taught AP History at Sentinel High School with Curtis. 

“I would just think that knowledge of government and the constitution would be extremely important, if not, in my opinion, necessary, to be an effective member of the government,” Babcock said in an interview. 

“I know Curtis looks to himself as an Eisenhower Republican and I think a lot of people are looking for a term like that to describe what they believe in,” Babcock said. 

Jennifer Copley, a retired government and history teacher who was Curtis’ department chairwoman for a number of years, said when Curtis told her he was considering running for office she thought it was a great idea, and he would represent a Republican party that is “so much more than MAGA.”

“From the gut level, he understands Montanans,” Copley said. “He intends to walk the walk and speak those principles and values he believes are core to traditional Republican values.”

She said Curtis was always committed to teaching and informing people about how the government was intended to work, and she thinks he would continue that same work on behalf of Montanans. 

“I think about what our Framers wrote about again and again, that in the end, character matters,” Copley added. “I think that’s a value Ray would bring. I think that can be more important than who has the loudest megaphone.”

---

When federal quarterly fundraising numbers were released in March, three Republican candidates had more than a quarter million dollars in cash on hand. 

Curtis had none. 

He’s running a campaign in an old-school way — going around and talking to people, not relying on TV ads, mailers or laminated yard signs. 

“I don’ t like money in elections. I know what it’s used for and advertisements and brochures aren’t helpful to voters,” Curtis said. “What would I use money for? I’m just paying for gas money to get around.”

But Curtis is aware that he might come across as not being serious about his campaign due to his unwillingness to go head-to-head with well-financed candidates and play the political game the same way. 

“There’s the word, ‘game,’ and the gamesmanship has to stop,” Curtis said. “We have to get to the point where we’re actually serious about policy, rather than playing games to get elected.”

Curtis cited a Princeton study that showed if you take a popular policy idea that has near-universal support — he says Daylight Savings Time could be a good example — it has around a 30% chance of passing; and if you take a terrible idea that the majority of people disagree with, it has about a 30% chance of passing. 

“It depends on who’s paying,” Curtis said. “Funders are the ones getting their way. And I cannot – on principle – do that. I will owe donors nothing, and voters everything.”

Glacier National Park officials on Thursday announced they had located the remains of a Florida hiker who had been missing since Sunday evening.

The remains were found 2.5 miles up the Mt. Brown Trail above Lake McDonald approximately 50 feet off the trail in a densely wooded area with downed timber, according to a press release. The injuries sustained by the victim are consistent with a bear encounter.

Wildlife and law enforcement personnel are currently assessing the area for bear activity and any ongoing public safety concerns and temporary trail closures are in place near Lake McDonald, including the Mt. Brown, Gunsight Pass, Snyder Lake and Lincoln Lake trails.

The investigation into the incident is ongoing.

Glacier National Park has not recorded a fatal bear attack since 1998 in the Two Medicine Valley. The last incident where a visitor was injured by a bear was last summer.

Officials are withholding the name of the victim until his family has been notified.

Numerous agencies cooperated in the search and rescue and recovery operations, including Flathead County Search and Rescue, North Valley Search and Rescue, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, Minuteman Aviation, Civil Air Patrol, Montana Army National Guard, Flathead County Sheriff’s Office, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Wildland Fire Service, Montana Disaster and Emergency Services, U.S. Geological Survey, ALERT, Border Patrol, Malmstrom Air Force Base, U.S. Air Force Rescue and NPS staff.

WASHINGTON — Voters, including those within the Make America Healthy Again movement, say the rising cost of healthcare is a significant concern that will have an impact on whom they support in November’s midterm elections, according to a poll released Wednesday by KFF. 

Sixty-one percent of respondents to the survey, which asked how important several health-related issues were, said the price of healthcare will have a major impact on which party they support as control of Congress hangs in the balance.

Among MAHA voters, who are predominantly Republicans but also include independents and some Democrats, 42% said cost is their top issue heading into the elections. 

“While the issue of health costs is more salient for Democratic voters than for Republicans, larger shares across partisans say health costs will have a major impact on their voting decisions than say the same about vaccine policy or food safety,” the survey said. 

Seventy-two percent of Democrats, 63% of independents and 47% of Republicans said the cost of healthcare will have a major impact on which party’s candidate they vote for. 

Vaccine policy came in next, with 57% of Democrats, 46% of independents and 32% of Republicans surveyed saying it will have a major impact on their choice. 

Issues related to food safety came in third after 43% of Democrats, 40% of independents and 38% of Republicans responded that it will have a major impact on their choice of candidate.  

MAHA issues 

For MAHA voters, twice as many listed health costs as their first priority than the next issue: restricting the use of certain chemical additives in food, which was a key concern for 21%.

Ten percent were interested in politicians who will reevaluate vaccine approvals, 8% want lawmakers to limit corporate interest in food and 8% want Congress to limit the use of pesticides in agriculture. Eleven percent said none of those or had no answer. 

The survey showed that a significant majority of Americans across the political spectrum believe the government hasn’t done enough to address chemical additives in food or pesticide use in agriculture, two core demands of MAHA supporters.  

“The public perception that there is not enough regulation may be rooted in broader skepticism toward the industries themselves,” the survey said. “Most U.S. adults do not trust pharmaceutical companies, food and beverage companies, or agricultural companies to act in the public’s best interest.”

Doctors and healthcare providers were the most trusted source of information at 70%, followed by agriculture companies at 40%, food and beverage companies at 25% and pharmaceutical companies at 21%. 

Seventy-five percent of those polled said the government hasn’t done enough to regulate chemicals in food, while 65% said it should do more to regulate pesticides in agriculture. 

The poll of 1,343 U.S. adults took place from April 14 to April 19. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points for the full sample and 6 percentage points for MAHA supporters.

Two hundred and fifty years ago revolutionaries put their lives on the line to stand up to the greatest military and economic power on the planet — and told the King of England their status as colonials was over.  They would live free or die, and founded a new nation on the high ideals of equality, freedom and a representative system of government rather than kow-towing to royal edicts from on high.

To ensure freedom for the populace, the first thing the founders deemed indispensable was the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights that included freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right to petition the government. 

Importantly, the Founders had very direct experience with the monarchy — and they determined the best bastion against authoritarian rule was to split the government structure into three “separate but equal” branches — legislative, judicial, and executive.  

To ensure no one branch of government would prove overpowering, they not only built in the checks and balances between the branches, but guaranteed that the people of their new nation would have the right to speak, to write, and to protest the actions of the government in an open and uncensored free press.

World Press Freedom Day was celebrated internationally this week — because a free press remains the primary guarantee of a free people.  It would be great to say press freedom was flourishing and continuing to spread worldwide.  But that’s not the way it is.  

According the United Nations, “press freedom is in sharp decline everywhere.”  And yes, “everywhere” includes the United States, which was once lauded as the “beacon on the hill” to lead the world to freedom, dignity, and equal rights for all. 

Unfortunately, that beacon isn’t shining so brightly anymore.  In fact, it continues to dim at an alarming pace and the U.S. now sits at 64th out of the 180 nations assessed by Reporters Without Borders in its 2026 World Press Freedom Index, the lowest level since ranking began and seven points lower than just a year ago. 

As noted by Reporters Without Borders: “The U.S. has experienced a steady decline in the Index over the past decade, but President Trump is pouring gasoline on the fire.  Trump and his administration have carried out a coordinated war on press freedom since the day he took office, and we will live with the consequences for years to come.”

Indeed, this comes as no real surprise considering the on-going efforts to eliminate public broadcasters by dismantling the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to attack and destroy media outlets through lawsuits, and threatening reporters with charges of treason if they’re critical of Trump’s positions.

Then there’s the actual acts of physical violence against reporters.  According to the US Press Freedom Tracker “there were more than 170 attacks on journalists in 2025, nearly double the previous year, driven by an increase in violence against journalists while covering protests and law enforcement activity.”

It would be great to say Montana was somehow exempt from the disintegration of press freedom, but even now organizations seeking government information have to file lawsuits to find out who cut what deals with Governor Gianforte as he openly ignores the Montana Constitution’s Inalienable “Right to Know” the workings of our own government.

Make no mistake, our once-cherished freedoms are being attacked every day.  If we lose Freedom of the Press, the “beacon on the hill” will cease to even flicker, let alone shine — and “freedom” will be but a fading memory of what the Founders once went to war to attain.  

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s trade agenda faced another major setback Thursday when the U.S. Court of International Trade handed a win to two small businesses and the state of Washington after they challenged the president’s 10% global tariffs, imposed after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his previous emergency tariff regime.

In a 2-1 decision, the court granted a permanent injunction to a Florida-based toy manufacturer and a New York-based spice importer that sued the Trump administration in March, alleging the new tariffs would harm their businesses.

The court also granted relief to Washington state, which was among nearly two dozen states that sued over the tariffs. 

Tariff ‘bazooka’

Jay Foreman, CEO of toy company Basic Fun!, said he was “extremely excited” upon learning the decision.

“It takes a lot of guts and chutzpah for small companies like us and Burlap and Barrel to put ourselves out on the line to fight what we feel is injustice and unfair,” he said during a virtual press conference, referring to the other company named in the lawsuit, an online spice retailer.

“Certainly, there’s a place for tariffs on strategic products that make sense to protect in this country …  but in cases across the board, to approach this situation with a bazooka instead of a fine-tooth comb makes no sense, and it hurts companies like ours, hurts companies like Burlap and Barrel, hurts the consumer,” Foreman said Thursday evening. 

Basic Fun! is behind popular toys, including Tonka Trucks and Care Bears.

Foreman said he expects imports that were subject to the tariffs to arrive as soon as tomorrow.

“I’m already emailing my customs broker to make sure they’re on it,” he said.

The ruling only applies to the plaintiffs Basic Fun! and the online spice retailer Burlap and Barrel, and does not give universal relief to all businesses that must pay the blanket 10% tax on imports. 

Jeffrey Schwab, who argued the case on behalf of the clients for the Liberty Justice Center, said the nonprofit advocacy law firm has been “wrestling” with what the decision means for other businesses that are paying the import tax.

“It’s not entirely clear, and probably will depend on what happens now if the government appeals. If the government seeks a stay that could have an effect. Certainly, I think companies will probably want to file (legal challenges), being concerned about making sure that the tariffs stop for them, and possibly ensuring that they get a refund too,” Schwab said.

Win for Washington state

The ruling also applies to Washington state as an importer subject to the tariffs, according to the ruling. 

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown called the ruling “a win for both affordability and the rule of law.”

“It’s American consumers and businesses that have ultimately paid for the president’s illegal tariff campaign,” he said in a statement. “The court’s order will encourage more parties to challenge this illegal executive overreach.”

The judges ruled other states that sued did not have standing because they were “non-importers.” Among them were Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Trump ordered the fresh round of tariffs on Feb. 20, the same day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 6-3 opinion, that his initial global tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA, exceeded his presidential authority.

Following the Supreme Court loss, Trump’s alternative tariffs, imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, went into effect on Feb. 24.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is now in the legally mandated process of refunding businesses and importers who paid a collective $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs. 

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Two state lawmakers running in Republican primary elections have said that hundreds of mailers sent out depicting them waving a pride flag and wearing a button with pronouns on it violate a Montana law prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence to produce “deepfakes” in campaign materials. 

But a lawsuit filed in federal district court on Wednesday says the mailers are protected under free speech provisions of the First Amendment, and Montana’s law should be struck from the books. 

“Montana legislators are the biggest crybabies in the nation,” said Matthew Monforton, a Bozeman attorney who filed the federal lawsuit on behalf of the political committee Accountability in State Government. “That’s what’s generating these complaints. And their hostility towards any criticism by Montana citizens.”

The federal lawsuit, filed in Helena, names Attorney General Austin Knudsen, Lewis and Clark County Attorney Kevin Downs and Commissioner of Political Practices Chris Gallus as defendants. 

“Some Legislators took offense at images on the mailers that they claim were created using AI or digital technology purportedly regulated by Montana’s new law,” the complaint states. “So far, three legislators have filed campaign complaints under a new Montana statute that patently violates the First Amendment and includes penalties of civil fines and potential prosecution with up to two years in state prison.” 

Former legislator Jennifer Carlson, running for a state House seat outside Bozeman, and Republican Rep. Eric Albus, running for a state Senate seat along the Hi-Line, both filed complaints with the Commissioner of Political Practices over the mailers. 

Paid for by the political committee Accountability in State Government, whose treasurer Dan Bartel is a former Republican lawmaker himself, the mailers depict each candidate with pride flags and buttons and accuses them of pushing a “woke agenda” with taxpayer money. 

The mailers use real photos of the candidates, but digitally altered them to include the flags and buttons, which Carlson and Albus said in complaints to COPP violate a new Montana statute. 

Under the new law, Senate Bill 25, lawmakers criminalized the use of AI to create “deepfakes” — defined as content that “appears to a reasonable person to depict an individual saying or doing something that did not occur in reality; or provides a reasonable person a fundamentally different understanding or impression of the appearance, action, or speech than a reasonable person would have from the unaltered, original version.”

The law applies for 60 days leading up to an election and includes an exception to the law if a disclosure is included, identifying the use of AI in creating media that “depicts speech or conduct that falsely appears to be authentic or truthful.”

“I filed my complaint because the mailer was false and the sender broke the law,” Carlson told the Daily Montanan in a text. “That is why we have a Commissioner of Political Practices. And legislators should uphold the law, (or run for office to try to change it), not try to find a way to get away with breaking it.”

The lawsuit, filed by Monforton on behalf of Bartel and Accountability in State Government, said “this compelled-speech remedy is itself constitutionally infirm, as it forces political speakers to brand their own constitutionally protected communications as false and deceptive as the price of speaking at all.”

In the complaint, Monforton wrote that the law “criminalized protected political speech,” is overly broad and has vague definitions.

“The Act’s true aim is insulating legislators from criticism of their voting records, not protecting Montana voters from deception,” Monforton wrote.

The mailers that spurred the complaints specifically look at votes taken during the 2023 and 2025 Legislature for House Bill 9, an annual bill which funds cultural and aesthetic grants to organizations throughout Montana. 

In 2023, 65 organizations including museums, symphonies, and art galleries received state funding. A similar number received funding in 2025. Three organizations are highlighted on the mailers for pushing the “woke agenda”  through their programming. 

“In Helena, (Carlson/Albus) joined every Democrat in voting to give taxpayer-funded grants to organizations pushing woke nonsense,” the mailer reads. 

But an examination of the voting record for House Bill 9 in 2023 by the Daily Montanan shows the funding bill passed 95-5 in the Republican-controlled House and 37-12 in the Republican-controlled Senate. 

Bartel, who in 2023 was a state senator representing Lewistown, voted in favor of the grant funding. 

“Sen Bartel realizes he made a mistake in voting for HB 9,” Monforton said. “If Rep. Carlson had the same integrity and honesty and acknowledged her mistake, rather than trying to censor her critics, we would all be better off.”

Albus defended his 2025 vote for the bill saying it passes overwhelmingly every session, there is no specific programming attached to the funding, and it benefits groups across the state. 

“In my case, some of it went to the Fort Peck Fine Arts Council, a local Hi-Line group that benefits from the money,” Albus told the Daily Montanan. “I’m a Hi-Liner, how can I vote against that?”

But he added that he voted against all gender ideology bills during the session and has a near-perfect report card from the Montana Family Foundation.

He said it was “rather disingenuous and very, very hypocritical,” for Bartel to weaponize a vote he also made. 

Accountability in State Government sent out another mailer with a different focus targeting Republican Rep. Llew Jones, running for state Senate. The mailer depicted him in front of a digitally altered gas pump and sign pricing fuel at an “arm” and a “leg.” 

A complaint was filed with COPP against this mailer as well. 

Monforton said that the three candidates were targeted because Bartel has “particular concerns” over their voting records.

“They have been on the wrong side of many issues that are important to conservatives in Montana,” Monforton said. 

The federal lawsuit says the Montana statute governing AI use in campaign communications “is not an aberration but rather the latest in a long line of Montana laws struck down by the Ninth Circuit and this Court after being used against citizens who dared to criticize their legislators’ voting records.”

 It also says that exceptions to the law — which includes carveouts for media platforms presenting a “bona fide newscast” or news coverage, or in paid required advertisements — are discriminatory. 

“Institutional media may traffic in deepfakes; independent political speakers may not,” according to the complaint. “That is speaker-based discrimination of the kind the First Amendment condemns.”

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the Montana statute violates the First Amendment’s protections for speech and the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections for due process, as well as costs and expenses for the plaintiffs. 

“I find it to be rich in irony, after working in the Legislature to rein in activist judges legislating from the bench, that my Republican adversaries are looking for a judge to overturn a law they don’t like because they may be in big trouble for violating it,” Carlson said. 

“I can take the heat but I also think we are a nation, and a state, of laws. The mailer Bartel sent out was illegal, according to a law passed by the legislature last session,” she continued. “The law doesn’t even say they can’t lie about me or digitally alter my photo.  It requires them to disclose that they did and they didn’t.  Digitally manipulating someone’s photo to make something false seem true is a form of identity theft. My reputation is my possession and I will defend it. Character assassination is wrong and if you want to know why most people don’t get involved  — just look at these guys. Fighting for their right to lie.”

260506 Complaint – final

Public Service Commissioner Brad Molnar committed “serious misconduct,” including unwelcome sex-based comments in the workplace and retaliation against those who filed reports about his behavior, according to a report by an internal response team.

“Findings (independent and internal) confirm that Commissioner Molnar committed serious, repeated violations of agency policies and state law,” the report said. “Additionally, his obstruction and retaliation resulted in organizational harm and increased costs. His lack of accountability continues to expose the agency and the State to high risk of further misconduct.”

Read the report

It begins on page 260 here.

Wednesday, the Public Service Commission voted 3-2 to accept the report’s findings and recommendations, including that Molnar be relegated to remote work.

But Molnar said the findings are biased and lack merit, and his lawyer said the timing shows the PSC is only trying to block Molnar from fully participating in next week’s hearing on a controversial $15.4 billion proposed merger between Northwestern Energy and Black Hills Corp.

Lawyer Matthew Monforton said the last complaint filed against Molnar was in October 2025, and the PSC waited seven months to “drop the hammer” on him. He said the allegations are a pretext to keep him out of the meeting room.

Molnar voted against a proposed NorthWestern Energy merger in 2007, and he has raised concerns about the current proposal.

“They waited until days before the merger hearing in the middle of May 2026 to bar Commissioner Molnar from the most important hearing that the PSC will be having in years,” Monforton said. “ … There’s obviously no coincidence.”

The report, by the PSC’s internal “response team,” includes findings from a firm, CMS, hired to conduct the investigation into misconduct; actions the PSC took in response to complaints, including counseling for Molnar; and it characterizes Molnar’s response to calls for correcting his behavior as “belligerence and defiance.”

A PSC policy describes the “response team” as made up of the PSC president and three staff members — the executive director, chief legal counsel and human resources officer. Because Molnar had served as president and was subject of the allegations, PSC Vice President Jennifer Fielder served on the response team instead. (Membership changed over time due to personnel transitions and recusals, a PSC spokesperson said.)

Molnar most recently took office with the Public Service Commission in January 2025, and his colleagues elected him as president. The PSC is made up of five elected commissioners, currently all Republican.

But in July 2025, Molnar announced he was under investigation for “unprofessional conduct,” and he described the specific incidents of which he was aware as petty. He said he was only guilty of being “a redneck wearing a white shirt.”

The report, however, said misconduct by Molnar has been “pervasive since February 2025,” includes seven reports with formal allegations, including “repeated and unwelcome sex-based remarks; demeaning, disparaging or hostile language toward staff;” and retaliation.

“Collectively, the reports, investigation, and other observations reflect a sustained pattern of unprofessional, disruptive, policy-violating conduct — not isolated or inadvertent behavior,” the report said. “Commissioner Molnar has shown little interest in acknowledging or correcting his misbehavior.”

The report also includes recommendations for action, including that Molnar apologize or face censure by the PSC. Wednesday, after discussion about the findings and a tongue lashing from Fielder about the damage Molnar had done to the agency, the PSC voted to adopt the report.

The vote includes authorization for the response team to hire other professionals to produce “supplemental information” and to pay legal counsel to recover court costs from Molnar. The report cites the total cost related to the investigation at more than $65,000.

(The report said initial estimates were $5,000, but Molnar’s “uncooperative and retaliatory actions” led to more complaints and added cost. It outlined the costs as $22,749 for CMS, Communications and Management Services; $17,578 for Christensen and Prezeau PLLP, a Helena law firm; and $24,704 for Boone Karlberg, a Missoula law firm.)

Commissioner Randy Pinocci joined Molnar in voting against adopting the report after Pinocci’s move to postpone consideration of the report until June failed.

From May to July 2025, the report said multiple complainants had filed misconduct allegations against Molnar, including “disrespectful treatment of staff,” and it said in summer 2025, Molnar threatened retaliation, including a statement that he would “take down anyone involved.”

The report said managers received additional reports “of alarming behavior and workplace safety concerns” from August to October 2025, and three additional “formal complaints” of retaliation. It said employees adjusted schedules and work locations “to avoid perceived danger.”

In the last few months, Molnar has said he was never presented with specific information about the allegations, such as times and places, in order to have the opportunity to refute them. In October 2025, the PSC ousted him as president, citing disruption.

At the meeting this week, Fielder said she repeatedly tried to help Molnar avoid the trouble he found himself in, but he refused to accept the help. The report notes Molnar received agency-wide trainings on internal policies and Equal Employment Opportunity laws in 2025, and agency managers counseled Molnar specifically in early 2025 to stop making “unwelcome sex-based remarks in the workplace.”

“All you did was blame other people for it and make up excuses for what this was about, never accepting that it was about your actual behavior,” Fielder said.

She said Molnar failed to remedy the situation when given the opportunity, and rather, escalated the problems by retaliating against those who came forward to file complaints against him — “good people in this agency.”

“The damage that you have done with your conduct is undeniable,” Fielder said.

The report noted a couple of complaints Molnar filed against Commissioner Annie Bukacek, one with the Commissioner of Political Practices and one with the Board of Medical Examiners, were retaliatory given their lack of evidence, timing and eventual dismissal. (Bukacek is a medical doctor.)

In her lengthy remarks, Fielder defended Bukacek in particular, and she said Pinocci contributed to the problem. Fielder said the person who filed the complaint to the medical board is an affiliate of Molnar and Pinocci and the person cited them as the only two people having evidence for the allegation.

“You’ve put her (Bukacek) through hell because she complained about you,” Fielder said. “That is retaliation, and you both should be ashamed of yourself.”

At the meeting, Molnar said “everything in the report is hearsay,” the commission is “biased against me,” and the “star chamber” process was rigged from the start.

“They’ve been hunting for my head for more than a year,” Molnar said.

The report outlines recommendations, including that Molnar acknowledge misconduct and “issue a sincere public apology” and agree to follow the internal policy manual. It recommends he complete remedial trainings, including on sexual harassment, “civility standards,” and Robert’s Rules of Order, “emphasis on order and decorum.”

The report also recommends the PSC censure Molnar if he fails to demonstrate a “good faith effort” to execute on the actions in the report, that it limit him to remote work, and that it monitor his actions for compliance and expedite “tools to address any further misconduct.”

In August, Fielder, on behalf of the response team, sent a letter to Gov. Greg Gianforte asking him to suspend Molnar, alleging interference in the investigatory process. In Montana, the governor may suspend a commissioner for “good cause.”

In December, Gianforte declined to suspend Molnar, stating a lack of “good cause,” but he said his decision did not excuse alleged misconduct. Gianforte also urged the response team to continue its investigation.

The report recommends the PSC again ask Gianforte to suspend Molnar, at least until Molnar has completed the actions in the report, and at most for one year, the term “commensurate with the period of harm and disruption Commissioner Molnar has caused in the workplace.”

Thursday, a spokesperson for the Governor’s Office said Gianforte had not yet received such a request from the PSC. A spokesperson for the PSC said any future request would be made consistent with the recommendations in the report.

Molnar, however, already has been directed to vacate his office at the Public Service Commission, where the merger hearing is scheduled to take place starting May 12. The proposed merger has raised questions about whether it would lead to more data centers, and higher costs for Montanans.

“Most of the PSC members intend to saddle Montana ratepayers with this merger and facilitate unbridled construction of data centers,” Monforton said. “Brad Molnar is the only one standing in their way, which is why he will not be in the hearing room on Tuesday.”

But Monforton said Molnar did nothing to deserve being barred and “having the voice of his voters silenced.”

“The Montana PSC is the most corrupt regulatory agency in the nation,” Monforton said.

WASHINGTON — State governments should shoulder more of the cost and responsibility for natural disaster recovery, according to a report released Thursday by the Federal Emergency Management Agency review council.

The board, created by President Donald Trump last year, called on Congress and the administration to make several major changes, including offloading the National Flood Insurance Program to the private insurance market. 

Robert Fenton, regional administrator for FEMA Region 9 and a member of the review council, said the flood insurance program is “financially unstable” and in considerable debt. 

“We came away with a number of recommendations that we want to put forward — primarily that focuses on a shift from a federally managed flood insurance program back to the private sector and allowing the private sector to take on a bigger role within the market,” he said. “And I think that’s going to help because it puts the states, who are statutorily responsible for regulating insurance, back into a critical role.”

Fenton said the review council recommended lawmakers create a program to transfer NFIP policies, which he noted are a requirement for many homeowners, to the private sector.

But there will be some extra work to do on the 5% of NFIP policies he said are categorized as “repetitive loss” and are “responsible for 30% to 40% of the payouts that we do through our flood insurance program.” 

“So leveraging our other programs, like our mitigation program,” Fenton said. “How do we buy out those homes and move them out of those risk areas? Or how do we build the infrastructure around them to better protect them and have those not be areas that have repetitive damage?”

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson wrote in a statement that Trump “looks forward to reviewing the recommendations put forth by the FEMA Review Council.”

“The President remains committed to getting resources to communities in need while also working with states to ensure they invest in their own resilience before disaster strikes, making response less urgent and recovery less prolonged,” Jackson added. 

Trump has said throughout his second term that he wants to change how the federal government approaches natural disaster management and recovery.

“We want to wean off of FEMA and we want to bring it down to the state level,” Trump said in June. “We’re moving it back to the states so the governors can handle it. That’s why they’re governors. Now, if they can’t handle it, they shouldn’t be governor.”

Feds should be in ‘supporting role’

Kevin Guthrie, executive director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, said one of the review council’s main recommendations is “to equip state, local, tribal, territories to lead disaster response with the federal government in a supporting role, not a supplanting role.”

“We want FEMA to set the standard and then encourage creation of standards and then adoption of standards at the state, local, tribal, territorial level,” he said. 

Guthrie said during the public meeting where review council members outlined the recommendations in their 75-page report that “federal assistance should only be reserved for truly significant events that exceed state, local, tribal, territorial capacity and capability.”

The federal government, he said, needs to update the methodology it uses to determine when a natural disaster or other major event has overwhelmed a community’s ability to recover. 

“Many, many states are going to say, ‘I hit a million dollars, I can request the threshold,’ regardless if it’s actually broken the back of that local or state government,” Guthrie said. “They’re going to do it because they can. And again, that’s what we’re talking about. We need to realign that.”

‘Empowering the states’

Former Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant said “nothing can be more important than empowering the states to take on this responsibility,” though he added that individuals need to prepare for natural disasters as well. 

“I remember as a child when people had their own fallout shelters in their backyards,” he said. “If they didn’t, they knew where the closest fallout shelter was. We took responsibility for food and water and to be able to respond to those disasters.”

Fenton said the review council believes FEMA’s post-disaster mitigation program should be turned over to state governments. 

“Let the state manage this program by providing them the resources and an architecture that will ensure that priorities are naturally aligned and that some of the complexities of environmental review and some of the other reviews are done locally,” he said.  

Guthrie said FEMA should also look for ways to speed up federal assistance by making it less complex for people whose homes are deemed uninhabitable following a disaster. The federal government should also allow state, local, territorial, or tribal governments to have more of a say on emergency housing. 

“Let’s get back to some common-sense, state-managed solutions,” he said. 

Another suggestion from the board calls on the administration and lawmakers to better integrate private sector, faith-based and nonprofit organizations that regularly play a role in natural disaster response and recovery. 

“(The) private sector is responsible for so much in disasters, and they own so much of the infrastructure or key capabilities that we depend on,” Fenton said. “And so we need to be able to leverage those retailers, those small businesses and we need to give them a way to integrate with these events.” 

Congressional action 

Many of the recommendations from the review council will need to run through Congress, where work overhauling FEMA began last year. 

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted 57-3 in September to approve a bill that would make several changes to the FEMA, including removing it from the Department of Homeland Security and making the agency its own Cabinet-level department. 

The legislation would create one application for federal natural disaster assistance from FEMA, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Small Business Administration. 

It would also give local and state governments more flexibility in deciding which types of emergency housing best meet the needs of their residents following different natural disasters.

House Republican leaders have yet to bring the bipartisan bill to the floor for a vote. 

Disaster survivors

On a call organized by disaster relief advocacy group Organizing Resilience, disaster survivors said the council did well at identifying problems with the current infrastructure, but that the recommendations appeared to come up short.

“Our concern for disaster survivors is that some of the recommended changes may not reflect what the council heard from survivors about what they need,” Maddie Sloan, the director of disaster recovery at the social justice nonprofit Texas Appleseed, said on the call shortly after the report was published.

FEMA would be unable to act on many of the recommendations on its own without congressional approval, Sloan said, while many of the “transformative actions” the agency has taken over the past 18 months have significantly weakened disaster response.

The changes shifted responsibility from the federal agency to states, tribes, local government and individuals, she said. Thursday’s recommendations would only worsen that problem.

“Survivors absolutely want a more streamlined system, and they need help to get to them faster,” Sloan said. “But these recommendations, particularly around individual assistance, in fact slash the help that’s available to individual survivors.”

One such change, allowing only relief for survivors whose homes are uninhabitable, means that costs related to auto repair or replacement, medical care or funerals cannot be covered, Sloan said.

Shifting responsibility to state and local governments, without any federal guarantee of repayment, would leave more survivors without access to critical funds, Sloan and other panelists said.

Michael McLemore, an organizer in St. Louis and a survivor of the tornado there last year, said the federal response was marked by “abdicating responsibility, playing political games and shifting the burdens of states and … cities.”

It took the agency nearly eight months to even start obligating funds, leaving the city to shoulder the cost in the meantime, McLemore said.

The panel called for passage of the bipartisan FEMA bill, sponsored by Missouri Republican Sam Graves and Washington Democrat Rick Larsen, along with 68 other cosponsors, that would take FEMA out of DHS management and reestablish it as an independent agency.

WASHINGTON — Attorneys for the Trump administration argued before a federal appeals court Thursday the Pentagon should be able to reprimand Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly for reminding members of the military they can refuse illegal orders, and for criticizing the Defense Department. 

Lawyers from the Justice Department told the three-judge panel that even though Kelly, a retired Navy captain, is no longer on active duty and has no commanding officer, they believe he is still subject to disciplinary action and limited First Amendment rights. 

John Bailey, an attorney in the DOJ’s civil rights division, said a “pattern of statements and conduct” showed Kelly intended to “counsel disobedience” within the armed forces. That led to a censure letter and attempts by the Defense Department to downgrade his retirement rank and pay. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s attempts to punish Kelly, he said, weren’t solely based on the senator’s appearance alongside other Democrats in the “Don’t Give up the Ship” video.

Bailey said comments Kelly made during a press conference and in television news interviews about the deployment of National Guard troops to various cities and strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean also played a role. 

Bailey told the judges that if Kelly or another of the roughly 2 million retired service members wanted to make similar statements, they were “free” to separate from the military and resign their commissions. He said the Trump administration was not seeking to apply the same restrictions on free speech to the 17 million veterans who have been discharged and no longer have any connection to the military. 

But, Bailey also told the judges that “context matters” and an instructor at the Naval Academy or West Point wouldn’t be in the wrong to tell service members they aren’t required to follow illegal orders.  

The question before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which will rule in the coming weeks, is on whether a preliminary injunction granted to Kelly can stay in place while the case proceeds, or whether it should be overturned.

Separation of powers

The attorney representing Kelly said during oral arguments a district court judge ruled correctly earlier this year when he granted the preliminary injunction that allows Kelly to keep his retirement rank and pay while the case moves through the court system. 

Benjamin C. Mizer, a partner at the Arnold & Palmer law firm, said that Kelly “did not counsel disobedience to lawful orders.” 

He also said subjecting a retired service member who is also a lawmaker to the jurisdiction of the president as commander-in-chief would create an issue with the separation of powers. 

Kelly said outside the courthouse after 90 minutes of oral arguments the Trump administration’s attempts to limit the free speech rights of retired service members was “absurd” and “an outrageous violation of our constitutional rights.”

“One of our most fundamental rights is the right to speak out about the government,” Kelly said. “It’s the right that guarantees all others and it’s how we hold our government accountable.”

Kelly said the voices and experiences of retired service members are especially important after President Donald Trump started a war with Iran. 

“Who better to speak out and share their perspective than the people who served — retired military members who understand the risks and sacrifice of sending brave Americans into combat, who understand how to use combat power, but also understand its limitations,” he said. “And also who have seen the mistakes of past administrations that thought wars could be fast and simple, only to get bogged down for years or for decades.”

Karen LeCraft Henderson, nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1990; Cornelia T.L. Pillard, nominated by President Barack Obama in 2013; and Florence Y. Pan, nominated by President Joe Biden in 2022, make up the three-judge panel that will rule on the appeal.  

Downgrade in Kelly retirement rank, pay

The case began earlier this year after Hegseth started the process to downgrade Kelly’s retirement rank and pay for appearing in a 90-second video alongside other Democratic lawmakers. 

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said in the video published in November. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

The video also featured Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander. 

A censure letter from Hegseth released in January alleged Kelly’s comments in the video undermined the military chain of command, counseled disobedience, created confusion about duty, brought discredit upon the Armed Forces and included conduct unbecoming of an officer. 

Senior Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia District Court heard arguments in early February over whether to grant Kelly a preliminary injunction, which he did later that month. 

“Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired servicemembers, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years,” Leon wrote. “If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights!”

The Trump administration then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

After an assassination attempt at a journalists’ dinner in Washington, D.C., U.S. Sen. Tim Sheehy of Montana said he’d push legislation to fund a White House ballroom – the pet project of President Donald J. Trump.

“It is an embarrassment to the strongest nation on earth that we cannot host gatherings in our nation’s capital, including ones attended by our President, without the threat of violence and attempted assassinations,” Sheehy said, right after the event.

Sheehy wasn’t alone. A sizable group of Republican lawmakers expressed support for the idea, with several drafting proposals to fund the project, which was pegged at $400 million.

Update

A previous version of this story did not have information from Sen. Sheehy’s office by publication time.

Sen. Sheehy did present a bill on April 30 for unanimous consent — a process where Senators can pass legislation quickly, unless any other member objects.

Sheehy introduced legislation that would authorize the “East Wing Modernization Project.” (Click here for bill language)

That bill would clear the way for President Trump to guide and manage the ballroom project. That legislation is silent about taxpayer funds, but says that private funds may be used.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Sheehy said:

“No taxpayer dollars are being spent at a time when we are worried about our national debt, our ballooning debt, and we’re trying to explain to Americans how we’re going to make their lives more affordable. We should not be spending their money on a project like this, and we are not. This is private donations.”

Sheehy’s bill would seem to target a recent federal court ruling that is examining whether Trump has the authority to make changes to the White House without other approval steps.

“The president has the statutory authority to make modifications, to make additions to federal facilities, particularly the White House, and the ballroom project has long been considered by both presidents of both parties throughout the years and the White House been modified by Democrat and Republican Presidents alike to make sure that our residence for the head of state can be safe, can be efficient, and can be a place of honor to host foreign heads of state as well as our very own citizens. Unfortunately, recently, a district court decided in a partisan ruling that the president did not have the authority to do this. This is incorrect. The president does have the authority,” Sheehy said.

However, Sheehy did not comment on whether he supported a plan by the Senate Republicans to fund the ballroom project, in part using $1 billion of taxpayer funding.

While many elected leaders had supported the ballroom before the shooting, what changed was the funding source. 

In more than a dozen instances prior to the dinner, Trump pledged that the project would be funded by private donations – without taxpayer funding, even as the price tag for the project rose from $200 million to $400 million. Nearly 40 different individuals and groups have been identified as donors.

But after the dinner, Republicans in the United States Senate put a $1 billion funding provision of taxpayer money to go toward the project. And it’s likely there will be nothing Congressional Democrats can do to halt the funding, even as the ballroom construction may be paused or delayed because of legal challenges that claim the demolition of the East Wing for the ballroom may not have been properly completed, and plans for the ballroom may not have been properly approved.

The funding for the project would come from Congress’ funding for immigration through the Department of Homeland Security. Funding for the DHS had stalled for months because of an intractable disagreement between Republicans and Democrats about the techniques Immigration and Customs agents are using to track and prosecute undocumented immigrants, as well as the treatment of American citizens.

Republicans in Congress have chosen to use a budget process known as “reconciliation” for the ballroom project and funding DHS. That process only requires a simple majority from both the House and Senate to gain approval, meaning that the $1 billion project could be approved without any support from Democrats, even though Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania said he would support the measure.

The $1 billion in funding is a portion of the overall $70 billion funding, and some GOP supporters have pointed out the funds can only be used for security in the new ballroom structure.

The Daily Montanan reached out to all four members of the Montana Congressional delegation – all Republicans – on Wednesday to gauge their concerns or support for the project. As of Thursday afternoon, it had received no response from any of them. 

The Daily Montanan submitted these seven questions to each member (the questions below were sent to Sheehy, but modified for each member personally):

 

1. Does Sen. Sheehy support using taxpayer funding for the ballroom project? Why or why not?

1. In announcing his plans for the new ballroom, President Trump repeatedly said that there would be no public funds used in the project (we can find at least a dozen of these). Does Sen. Sheehy expect the Trump administration to honor that pledge?

1. Preservationists and others have raised questions and filed lawsuits because of how the project was pushed forward and the East Wing toppled. Do you have any concerns with the process used so far to accomplish the ballroom plans?

1. In your opinion, what is the proper role of Congress as it relates to oversight of monuments like the White House?

1. Cost of living, inflation and gas prices are just some of the most pressing issues facing Americans currently. If you support the plan to fund the ballroom project using taxpayer dollars in part, how would you explain the support to Montanans who are struggling just to afford every day necessities?

1. Is building a billion-dollar ballroom while Americans are struggling and we’re engaged in a war, sending the wrong message about the Republican Party’s priorities?

1. A number of polls have shown that the ballroom project doesn’t enjoy a lot of public support; in fact, polling suggests the ballroom is deeply unpopular. Given that, if you support the project, how would you justify that support when the idea seems like the American public doesn’t want it?
2. As we begin looking ahead to the 2026 elections, there have been a number of polls suggesting that voters are dissatisfied with the President and many of his policies. Given that people are struggling with the cost of living, do you worry that the GOP’s support of projects like this will only end up hurting the party in the not-so-distant future elections?

The day after the U.S. Supreme Court crippled the federal Voting Rights Act, NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson addressed a virtual gathering for the group’s members and supporters where he ranked the landmark decision alongside the court’s most infamous cases.

Dred Scott excluded Black people from American citizenship ahead of the Civil War. Plessy blessed policies of racial segregation in 1896. And now there was Callais. 

The opinion will “probably go down in the history book as one of three of the worst Supreme Court decisions in the history of this nation,” Johnson said.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Louisiana vs. Callais on April 29 cleared states to split apart, for political gain, congressional districts where a majority of residents belong to minority groups. The court’s conservative majority said Louisiana lawmakers acted unconstitutionally when they intentionally created the state’s second majority-Black district, which the justices found unnecessary.

A week after its release, the decision is roiling politics across the South as states move at a rapid pace to recast the political landscape that has taken progressives by surprise. 

Republicans, triumphant over their victory at the court, are rushing fresh gerrymanders through Southern statehouses in time for the November midterm elections in an effort to strengthen their party’s control over the region’s U.S. House delegations. They’re acting at lightning speed, over loud protests, and have nullified votes by suspending ongoing elections.

Democrats, especially Black residents, are furious with both the court and GOP politicians, who they believe are poised to wipe away decades of Black political progress in the region. The new maps that seek to oust Black members of Congress and prevent the election of Democrats in the future recall a Jim Crow past of literacy tests and poll taxes, they say.

“We refuse to let you kill us by killing our vote,” Eliza Jane Franklin, a resident of rural Barbour County, Alabama, told a state House hearing Tuesday.

Decision kicked off legislative efforts

The Alabama Legislature is moving to authorize a special primary election using a congressional map currently blocked in federal court, if a district court or, ultimately, the Supreme Court allows the state to move forward. At least one of the state’s two Black members of the U.S. House would be vulnerable.

In Louisiana, the governor has suspended the state’s primary elections for the U.S. House, setting aside some 42,000 votes that were already cast. Republican lawmakers will begin advancing a new gerrymander in a matter of days, aiming to force out at least one of the state’s two Black House members.

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a new map into law Monday that aims to hand his party up to four additional U.S. House seats. State lawmakers approved the map hours after the Supreme Court’s decision. The map has already drawn multiple legal challenges.

The South Carolina Legislature is weighing whether to redraw maps. And Tennessee lawmakers want to gerrymander a Memphis district currently held by U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, a white Democrat who represents the state’s only majority-Black district. 

“The Supreme Court has opined that redistricting, like the judicial system, should be color-blind,” Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, said in a statement Thursday unveiling a plan to divide the Memphis area among three congressional seats.

More states, in the South and elsewhere, are expected to pursue new maps over the next two years. Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp ruled out a special session this year, for example, but supports redistricting before the 2028 election. 

The current moment represents an extraordinary time in America, said Rebekah Caruthers, president and CEO of Fair Elections Center, a nonpartisan voting rights group. But she also called it a reversion “back to America.”

Many thought the presence of Black, Hispanic and Asian American elected officials somehow meant racial discrimination no longer existed, she said.

“And unfortunately, that is a misread of American history,” Caruthers said. “And perhaps it is a retelling of American history for those who want to gloss over America’s very sordid past, especially when it comes to voting rights.”

Midterms impact

The scramble by a handful of Southern states to redraw districts comes as Republicans grasp for any scintilla of advantage ahead of the midterm elections in November. 

A U.S. House under Democratic control would spell the end of much of President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda, produce a wave of investigations into his administration and potentially lead to a vote to impeach him in the House, though the Senate would almost certainly acquit him.

“This is all about Donald Trump wanting to avoid hard questions and oversight hearings about his actions,” Cohen said at a news conference in Memphis.

Seth McKee, a political science professor at Oklahoma State University who has studied Southern politics, said Republicans are attempting to “staunch the bleeding” ahead of unfavorable midterm elections.

“The desperation of this Republican Party, it’s off the charts,” McKee said.

Redistricting push supercharged

Prior to Callais, Trump had already urged Republicans to redraw congressional maps for partisan advantage — a process that typically occurs once a decade after the census. 

Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas enacted more GOP-friendly maps, while Democrats struck back in California and Virginia. In Utah, Republicans want to block a court-ordered map that’s more favorable to Democrats.

Republican primary voters have given their approval to that approach. On Tuesday, five Trump-endorsed state legislative candidates in Indiana defeated GOP incumbents who had defied the president to block a gerrymander in the state last year.

But until now the Voting Rights Act limited how far that gerrymandering push could extend.

For decades, Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act helped protect majority-minority districts from gerrymandering and ensured voters could elect Black candidates to Congress in Southern states following the end of state laws that blocked Black citizens from voting. The Callais opinion guts Section 2 by curtailing the consideration of race when drawing legislative maps.

Republicans have praised the decision and many have been clear that they believe the opinion opens up a path to securing additional GOP seats. Trump has endorsed disregarding primary elections that have already been held so that states can pass new maps — which he predicts can net Republicans an additional 20 seats this fall.

“We cannot allow there to be an Election that is conducted unconstitutionally simply for the ‘convenience’ of State Legislatures,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “If they have to vote twice, so be it.”

Calls for GOP seats

Over the past week, some Republicans have cast majority-minority districts previously protected by the Voting Rights Act as racist because they were drawn with attention paid to the racial makeup of the map. U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Missouri Republican, wrote on X that there are “no more excuses for keeping racist maps,” for example, and called for their immediate removal.

Other GOP leaders have centered their case for quick action on political power. Like Trump, they have explicitly invoked control of the U.S. House as a reason to gerrymander. While Republicans have the House, their margin of control is razor thin: 217 to 212, with one independent and five vacancies. Even a modest Democratic wave in November will likely sweep away GOP control.

Alabama Senate President Pro Tem Garlan Gudger Jr. and House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter said in a joint statement that the state’s lawmakers have a responsibility to offer Alabama a “fighting chance” to elect seven Republican U.S. representatives. Two of the state’s seven districts are held by Democrats.

“Control of the U.S. House of Representatives could come down to just a handful of seats, and when the dust settles, the people of Alabama will know that their Legislature stood firm, acted decisively, and did everything within its power to fight for fair representation,” Gudger and Ledbetter said.

Alabama Republicans want to use a map passed by lawmakers in 2023 that federal courts blocked from taking effect. Alabama’s current map was drawn by a court-appointed special master.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, a Republican, asked a federal district court Tuesday for an order that would let the state move forward with the gerrymander.

In Louisiana, Republicans obtained special permission from the Supreme Court to quickly move forward on a new gerrymander after the justices struck down its current map in the Callais decision.

Absentee voting was already underway in Louisiana before Republican Gov. Jeff Landry suspended congressional primary elections set for May 16. Votes already cast for U.S. House candidates won’t count, Republican Secretary of State Nancy Landry, no relation, has said.

Louisiana state lawmakers are set to begin work on a new map this month that will likely break apart a New Orleans district held by U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, a Black Democrat who has fought with the governor.

“The Court’s decision in these cases has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the Supreme Court’s three liberal justices, wrote in a dissent of the decision to quickly finalize Callais.

Court challenges

Still, Democrats and other opponents of the gerrymandering effort across the South are turning to the courts. Lawsuits have also been filed challenging the suspension of Louisiana’s congressional primaries and Florida’s new map also faces court challenges.

A petition filed in Louisiana state court by Elias Law Group, a major Democrat-aligned voting rights litigation firm, alleges the governor’s decision to halt the congressional primary is unlawful and unprecedented. Only the state legislature has the power to set the state’s election schedule, the petition argues.

“Governors do not get to cancel elections by executive fiat, least of all elections that are already underway, with ballots in voters’ hands and votes already cast,” Lali Madduri, a partner at Elias Law Group, said in a statement.

Regardless of how the legal challenges play out, Democrats say the Callais decision and the ongoing fallout from the decision underscore the need for massive voter turnout in the November election. A large Democratic turnout that results in a significant Democratic majority in the U.S. House would serve as a rebuke to Trump’s gerrymandering campaign, they say.

Blue state gerrymanders

U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, South Carolina’s sole congressional Democrat, said during the NAACP virtual meeting that a Democratic House could pass voting rights legislation. 

“I would hope we could do that because I really think that’s our only hope legislatively,” Clyburn said.

Democrats have long called for the passage of a bill to restore preclearance, a major element of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court paused in 2013, which required states and local governments with a history of racial discrimination to obtain federal permission before making voting changes. 

But the measure would face a certain filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Even if Democrats broke a filibuster, Trump would likely veto it. 

In effect, Democrats’ most realistic opportunity to enact major voting rights legislation relies on regaining control of the White House and Congress and ending the filibuster — a set of conditions that’s out of reach until at least 2029.

In the meantime, more Democrats are calling for aggressive gerrymandering of blue states as a way to punch back. U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Rep. Joseph Morelle, both New York Democrats, on Monday announced an initiative to encourage their state to redraw congressional districts ahead of the 2028 election.

Gerrymandering New York would be an intensive effort, likely requiring voters to repeal or suspend anti-gerrymandering provisions in the state constitution. But voters in California and Virginia have previously endorsed Democratic gerrymanders.

“This is just the beginning,” Jeffries said in a statement. “Across the nation, we will sue, we will redraw and we will win.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision gutting the federal Voting Rights Act could upend American politics and trigger a new rush to redraw congressional districts.

The opinion released on Wednesday, in a case called Louisiana v. Callais, holds sweeping consequences for how states and local governments draw district lines at all levels of government, from Congress to school boards. 

Louisiana, whose congressional map is at the center of the case, may even suspend an upcoming primary election so state lawmakers can pass a new map. Other states are also weighing new gerrymanders, either this year or before the 2028 election. 

Gerrymandering refers to drawing political maps for the purpose of gaining some form of unfair advantage — whether partisan or racial or to help or hurt an incumbent or candidate.

Following the decision, Democrats are calling for Congress to pass new federal voting rights legislation, but President Donald Trump would likely veto it. Others are urging more radical changes, including expanding the size of the Supreme Court.

As the nation responds to the decision, here’s a States Newsroom look at the decision, what it means and what could happen next.

What is Louisiana v. Callais?

After the 2020 census, the Louisiana Legislature passed a congressional map that included one district where a majority of residents are Black. About a third of the state’s population is Black.

States typically draw new congressional lines once a decade following the census, though several states have pushed through new maps this year after Trump called on Republicans to maximize their political advantage heading into the midterm elections this November.

Black voters challenged the Louisiana map and an appeals court ordered lawmakers to pass a new map. The legislature in 2024 approved a map that includes a second district where a majority of residents are Black, also called a majority-minority district.

In response, a group of white voters sued over the new map, claiming it violated the U.S. Constitution and was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law and the 15th Amendment prohibits denying the right to vote on the basis of race.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Phillip Callais, hence the case’s name. The New York Times reported last year that Callais is a veteran who lives near Baton Rouge. 

The Supreme Court held its first oral argument on the case in March 2025. But instead of issuing a decision later that spring, the court held a second round of oral argument in October. 

At that time, comments by the conservative justices strongly suggested the court was interested in weakening the federal Voting Rights Act.

What is the Voting Rights Act and what role did it play in redistricting?

The Voting Rights Act, or VRA, is a 1965 federal law passed by Congress and signed by President Lyndon Johnson.

The law was designed to stop racial discrimination in voting and combat Jim Crow laws like literacy tests that Southern states used to prevent Black people from voting.

It contains several sections but the Supreme Court decision in Callais dealt with Section 2. That section prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race and other characteristics. In 1982, Congress expanded Section 2 to ban voting practices that have a discriminatory effect, whether or not the law was intended to discriminate.

Section 2 has acted as a ban on racial gerrymandering, or the practice of drawing districts to minimize the political influence of minority voters. Over time, that’s led to the creation of numerous majority-minority congressional districts.

Many of these majority-minority districts are located in Republican-controlled Southern states  but are held by Democrats. In the past, if states drew new maps to spread minority voters across several districts, they could face challenges in federal court under Section 2.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana’s congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 

The court found that because the Voting Rights Act didn’t require Louisiana to create a second majority-minority district, the state didn’t have a compelling reason to consider race when drawing its map.

Under the court’s reasoning, Section 2 only applies when evidence supports a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred. In other words, lawmakers only violate Section 2 when they draw districts with the purpose of affording minority voters less opportunity because of their race.

The court’s majority opinion says “none of the historical evidence presented by plaintiffs came close to showing an objective likelihood that the State’s challenged map was the result of intentional racial discrimination.”

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by all of the court’s conservatives: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neal Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The court’s three liberal justices — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented.

Why is the decision a big deal?

The decision empowers states to gerrymander in ways that break apart districts where a majority of residents are Black, Hispanic or belong to another minority group.

In 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts would no longer take cases about partisan gerrymandering. That’s where states draw maps to help a political party.

Because many majority-minority districts in the South are held by Democrats, the Callais decision gives Republican states the power to break apart these districts if they can show they are doing so for a partisan purpose.

“Under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power,” Kagan wrote in a dissent.

In the short term, the decision means several Black Democrats in the U.S. House may lose their seats if states pass new maps either this year before the November midterm elections or before the 2028 election. At least one projection has pegged the potential losses as high as 19 seats.

The loss of even a few Black representatives would constitute the largest drop in Black representation in Congress since Reconstruction following the Civil War, according to an NPR analysis. 

In the long term, minority voters will have a more difficult time electing their preferred candidates if they are moved into majority-white districts. The decision also applies to state legislative districts, meaning the number of Black state lawmakers may drop as well.

What impact does the Voting Rights Act have after the ruling?

Not nearly as much.

The Supreme Court’s decision didn’t strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. But Kagan and other critics of the opinion say the protections once extended by Section 2 are effectively dead.

To block a map under Section 2, challengers will now have to show states intentionally discriminated against minority voters, a very difficult standard when states can say they drew maps for partisan advantage.

In a series of decisions during the past 13 years, the Supreme Court has also weakened other elements of the Voting Rights Act.

In 2013, the court effectively blocked preclearance, another major portion of the law contained in Section 5. Preclearance required states and local governments with a history of discrimination to obtain federal permission before making voting changes.

Preclearance applied to most Southern states and a handful of others. The justices didn’t strike down preclearance, but ruled that the criteria used to determine whether governments should be subject to preclearance was unconstitutional.

The law required districts that had voting tests in place in 1964 and had less than 50% turnout in the 1964 presidential election as eligible for preclearance. The court found that the criteria no longer made sense and were outdated. 

In theory, Congress could pass new criteria that would restore preclearance.

How are Republicans responding?

Republicans in Southern states are pushing for new maps that could hand their party more seats in the November elections — but also oust Black Democratic members of Congress.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, announced on Thursday that the state’s primary election, set for mid-May, would be paused. The suspension will give time for state lawmakers to redraw the state’s congressional map to eliminate the state’s second majority-minority district.

“We are working together with the Legislature and the Secretary of State’s office to develop a path forward,” Landry said in a statement.

Florida lawmakers passed a new map hours after the court’s decision that could provide Republicans with up to four additional seats. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis had introduced the map earlier in the week and had cited Callais in urging lawmakers to act.

In Tennessee, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican running for governor, called on state lawmakers to pass a new map. Prominent Republicans in Georgia said the state should pass a new map.

Not all Republicans are pushing for immediate action. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said that while she supports the Supreme Court’s decision, the state wasn’t in a position to hold a special session to redistrict.

How are Democrats responding?

Democrats have condemned the Supreme Court’s opinion and say lawmakers and the public should fight back.

Many Democrats say Congress should pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named after civil rights activist and Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who died in 2020. The legislation would set new criteria for preclearance, seeking to restore the practice after the Supreme Court stopped it in 2013.

The U.S. House passed the measure in 2021, but it didn’t advance through the Senate. 

Enacting the measure remains extremely difficult. If Democrats retake control of Congress in the November elections, Trump would almost certainly veto the measure. Republicans in the U.S. Senate would also likely block the bill, unless Democrats eliminate the filibuster.

Democrats are also weighing a new round of gerrymanders in blue states. While most attention has focused on Southern Republican states, Democrats can now also engage in racial vote dilution in states like California to secure additional U.S. House seats.

Some Democrats and opponents of the Supreme Court’s decision are pushing for other responses. 

They include expanding the size of the court from nine justices to dilute its conservative majority, implementing term limits for justices, banning mid-decade redistricting or requiring states to use independent commissions to draw congressional maps.

“We must continue to fight for a democracy in which every vote counts, and in which every vote holds equal power, starting by banning mid-decade gerrymanders nationwide and establishing fair redistricting criteria,” Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, said in a statement.

But those changes would require federal legislation, giving Republicans the opportunity to stop the proposals through filibusters in the Senate or by Trump’s veto.

President Donald Trump’s pick to become a federal judge in Montana, Kathleen “Katie” Lane, narrowly cleared her way through the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee along a party-line vote, despite the American Bar Association deeming her to be “unqualified” as a candidate.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary forwarded four federal judge nominees, a U.S. marshal and a U.S. attorney nominee to the full Senate. That means Lane will have a full vote of the U.S. Senate, and if confirmed, would take a lifetime appointment as a federal district judge in Montana, replacing retiring federal judge Susan Watters.

She received a 12-10 vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of several to only receive support from Republicans on the committee. 

Lane’s nomination has received widespread criticism stemming from her lack of experience, especially at the trial court level. Lane is from Bozeman and attended George Mason Law School. 

The American Bar Association, the largest nonpartisan professional group of attorneys in the country, rates judicial candidates as a means of aiding lawmakers to gauge the professional experience of nominees, as well as to inform the public. It evaluates both trial court and appellate court nominees to the federal bench. It has previously said that Lane was not qualified for the appointment, a conclusion  one GOP Senator seemed to relish.

“I hope she wears her ABA rating as a badge of honor based on the history of stellar judges who received poor ABA ratings,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said to the ABA Journal. 

The ABA said it “strictly” evaluates the candidates on professional qualifications, which touch on integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.

The ABA said that in addition to recommending 12 years of professional experience, candidates for the federal bench should have significant trial experience. 

The committee also evaluated more than 200 comments that were submitted regarding Lane.

“After a thorough peer review evaluation and careful deliberation, a majority of the Standing Committee has concluded that Lane presently does not meet the requisite minimum standard of experience necessary to be qualified for the high office of a federal trial judge,” the ABA letter concluded.

Lane graduated from law school in 2017 and has completed two clerkships for federal judges. She was also briefly a deputy solicitor general for the State of Montana. That translates to less than seven years of experience as an attorney. Lane has clerked for two federal judges, but she has never taken a case to trial or performed other common courtroom tasks. During questioning, she admitted she has only cross-examined one person on the witness stand.

Process and politics

Attorneys and leaders in the legal field call the ABA ratings the gold standard.

Meanwhile, Montana’s senior U.S. Sen. Steve Daines, a Republican, gave his endorsement of Lane during her introduction and nomination hearing. He said at the time that she had the support of fellow Montana Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy.

The Daily Montanan has reached out to both for more detailed reasons why they support Lane’s candidacy, but neither office responded. 

Her nomination has also drawn a number of opinion columns from Montana attorneys who have debated her career bonafides for the position, with many of those falling along political party lines.

Lane is currently the chief counsel for the Republican National Committee.

Carl Tobias, a former law professor at the University of Montana and currently the Williams Chair in Law at the University of Richmond, was a staff attorney for the Senate Judiciary Committee before coming to the Treasure State. 

Tobias said that while some Senators may publicly discount the ABA ratings, they are useful when evaluating the substantial number of candidates who come before the committee. 

“As Sen. Lindsey Graham, the longtime SJC member and recent chairman has said, the ABA efforts are ‘the gold standard,’” Tobias said. “The committee includes many highly respected lawyers who diligently and carefully analyze the candidates, often soliciting input from at least 100 practicing lawyers, and compiling very professional and comprehensive evaluations and reliable ratings of the candidates.”

Tobias and others have pointed out repeatedly that of the different categories that are measured, Lane simply lacks the legal experience – especially when it comes to running the day-to-day operations of a court. 

“If the Senate does confirm Lane, which it will probably do, it is difficult to predict what that will mean for Montana,” he said.

The federal government provides training for newly confirmed judges on issues they may encounter and best practices for addressing them. This is often referred to as “Baby Judges School.” . That program also pairs new judges with seasoned judges. 

“There are many well qualified Montana attorneys who could be excellent district judges,” Tobias said.

He said that Montana’s bench is staffed by hard-working veteran jurists who will likely help her behind the scenes if Lane is confirmed.

Brutal confirmation

Even though Lane barely made it out of the committee along party lines, most of the votes were far less partisan. For example, a different nominee in her cohort, Sheria Akin Clarke, who has been nominated as a district court judge in South Carolina, received a 15-to-7 vote; Kenneth Sorenson, who has been nominated as the U.S. Attorney for Hawai’i, received a 19-to-3 vote.

But Lane faced a blistering Senate panel during her confirmation hearing in March in which she and the others nominated struggled to say definitively who won the 2020 Election and if the Jan. 6, 2021, invasion of the U.S. Capitol was an insurrection. 

“Was the Capitol attacked (on Jan. 6, 2021)?” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut asked.

“Senator, the characterization of Jan. 6 is ongoing and subject to ongoing controversy and debate,” Lane replied. “As a nominee, it would be inappropriate for me to characterize it.”

When the Trump nominees had a difficult time answering those questions, Democratic senators voiced outrage, even though Lane was the only one of the candidates to respond that President Joe Biden won the 2020 Election.

“I hope you four realize how ridiculous you look spouting these preposterous canned answers in a forum in which you were supposed to tell the truth and demonstrate the judicial capacity to make independent factual decisions in hard cases. If you can’t sit here and say Joe Biden won that election or the capitol was attacked, what’s left?” asked Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island. 

Lane’s lack of experience also worried some senators. 

“When you’re a law clerk, you observe what happens,” said U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California. “You don’t do it yourself. Observing them and trying a case are two different things, I’m sure you’d agree.”

In April 2020, a mother was hiking the “M” trail in Missoula with her 13-year-old son for a needed respite from the COVID-19 lockdown. Their peace was shattered when they ran into Jared Kuntz, who repeatedly punched her and smashed her face with a rock. Her son ran down the mountain for help while uncertain of his mother’s fate. While the mom lived, her body and sense of security were shattered. 

This tragedy was not inevitable.  It was the predictable result of Montana’s deficient mental health system.  

This was not Jared’s first mental health crisis. Like many people who suffer from severe mental-health disorders, he had a familiar pattern. He stopped taking his medication. His behavior was increasingly bizarre. His family sought help. They could not get it. His crisis nearly killed a woman, traumatized a young man and took away Jared’s liberty. 

By the time he was sentenced, Jared was back on his medications. He was no longer in psychosis. He was rational, remorseful and sorry. He was sentenced to a lengthy incarceration at the Forensic Unit of the Montana State Hospital – the facility where criminal defendants with severe mental health conditions go. 

Most people with mental illnesses are non-violent and pose little risk to the public. They should be treated with dignity and compassion in alternative systems to criminal justice. Unfortunately, a small subset of people with mental illnesses are violent or continually disruptive. These people are overrepresented in our criminal justice system because our mental health system is under-resourced, undersized and lacking options that do not involve handcuffs and bars. 

The Missoula County Attorney’s Office civilly commits approximately 250 people a year to the Montana State Hospital. We also prosecute dozens of individuals with serious mental health issues who committed crimes each year. Thirteen percent of Missoula’s current jail population are people who have been legally committed to the Montana State Hospital due to their mental health conditions, often waiting a year or more for an available spot. They need mental health care. They sit in jail instead. While mental health is not the largest contributor to crime, it represents the greatest opportunity to make rapid improvements to make our communities safer and ensure better individual and community outcomes.   

The Montana Legislature has made good-faith attempts to fund improvements to our mental health system. This includes a $300 million investment in 2023, and funding for a new forensic mental health hospital in 2025, which is in the early stages of development in Laurel. These good intentions have hit a bureaucratic wall though and have had negligible results on the ground. 

I share some sympathies with the people of Laurel who oppose a new mental health hospital in their community. They are rightfully frustrated by the lack of information from the state. At a recent public meeting in Laurel, the State sent two staff members with no information or authority to answer questions, leaving the community frustrated and hostile. This silence breeds a predictable “not-in-my-backyard” backlash. 

There are reasonable questions about the facility.  Is Laurel the best place for a new hospital? What will it cost to run it? Are there more affordable options with the same or better outcomes? These are legitimate concerns. 

Montana desperately needs more forensic hospital beds as a middle ground between doing nothing and prison for mentally ill criminal offenders. These individuals are already in our communities.  They fill up beds in our jails, clog our hospital emergency rooms and roam our streets — without help and without treatment until it’s too late.  A hospital is a safer, secure and more dignified option than the status quo.   

But building an effective mental health system requires more immediate, proactive solutions: Re-funding mental health case managers that were cut in 2017, increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates for mental health services to provide community services, funding community group home residences, developing viable discharge plans for the mentally ill instead of dropping them off at homeless shelters, and partnering with local hospitals to treat mental-health issues on the front end. Had some of these resources been in place in 2020, Jared Kuntz may never have started up the “M” Trail that day.  

Mental health care can follow a preventative path to intervene before a crisis, or it can serve people after a crisis. Focusing only on building a new lock-down forensic hospital fails to seize an opportunity to prevent disruptive incidents in the first place and is generally more costly than prevention. A new hospital is expensive and would not be operational for years. It is necessary but should not be our only investment. Money is best spent on preventative measures to intervene in mental health crises before they result in a crime.  

The money for the Behavioral Health System for Future Generations was appropriated three years ago and could have transformed our mental health landscape. Much of it has either not been spent or squandered in studies, training and bureaucracy that has little practical impact on the ground.  

While additional hospital beds are being built, the state must invest in jail-based mental health care and restoration of fitness to stand trial to divert people away from hospital beds before they deteriorate. Jail-based competency restoration does not require new buildings, and the operation costs are a fraction of a new hospital. Montana could transform its mental-health system in a matter of a couple of years under existing appropriations while a new facility is being constructed. 

Tragedies like the one on the “M” Trail can be prevented with real and viable solutions. Communities across Montana have numerous solutions to reduce crime, alleviate jail pressure, reduce homelessness, help families with mental-health crises and reduce recidivism for less money and better outcomes. 

What we need now is State support and funding to make these solutions a reality. 

Montana State Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy announced on Wednesday he is unsuspending his campaign for the U.S. House and said recently publicized allegations of sexual abuse against him are “character assasination.”

Last month, Montana Democratic Party Chairperson Shannon O’Brien announced she had learned of serious sexual abuse allegations against Windy Boy. Legislative leaders called on the Democrat from Box Elder to resign his position in the Legislature. 

At the time, Windy Boy said he was putting his Congressional campaign “on suspension” citing health reasons and grief over the deaths of family members.

But in his first public statements about the allegations since they were published three weeks ago, Windy Boy made no mention of his health or grief and brushed the claims off as political maneuvering, going after one of his Democratic primary opponents. 

“This is a political ambush,” Windy Boy said in a press release. “This is an old smear campaign that has turned into a political hit. These allegations are being repackaged and pushed publicly for political purposes.”

Windy Boy said he is being “politically prosecuted” by the Democratic leadership, and said Helena attorney Brian Miller, who is also running for Congress as a Democrat against him in the primary election, is “vexatiously smearing” his name. 

Miller previously told the Daily Montanan he had learned of the allegations and had been speaking to the alleged victim in his capacity as a lawyer for several weeks before they became public, but had worked to maintain some distance from the issue by contacting additional lawyers to alleviate concerns about it being politically motivated. 

Once Windy Boy initially suspended his campaign, Miller began officially representing the victim and her mother, Brenda Russell, who had been posting to social media earlier this year allegations that Windy Boy had propositioned her underage daughter and sent explicit photos more than two decades ago. 

In his statement, Windy Boy said that Miller has a public disciplinary record as an attorney, which should be “considered when evaluating the credibility” of the campaign against him. 

“This is about the public record and about accountability,” Windy Boy said. “My enemies are making a lot of noise, but just as before, there have been no charges, no adjudication. This is all dirty politics, based upon rumors and slanderous allegations to influence election outcomes just weeks before voting begins.”

Windy Boy has previously been the subject of harassment complaints, according to the AP, and an investigation report released by the Legislative Services Division substantiated the claims that Windy Boy had sent a female lawmaker harassing text messages in 2017. He said then that he believed his Constitutional rights had been violated during the investigative process, a claim he repeated in his statement on Wednesday. 

The disciplinary action against Miller that Windy Boy referenced involves a federal judge who found Miller had filed a “retaliatory motion” in a lawsuit and sanctioned him for “bad faith and vexatious conduct.” Subsequently, the Montana Supreme Court’s Commission on Practice publicly admonished Miller for making arguments about a judge’s qualification and integrity “with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.”

In a response to the Daily Montanan, Miller said that in 2014 he had accused a judge of helping out an attorney on the other side of a case and altering deposition testimony, statements he said “cross the line and constituted judicial harassment.”

While the disciplinary board admonished him, his law license was “never suspended for one single second,” and he said he hasn’t had an issue with any other judge since, or with the same judge on other cases. 

“Although it was not the best move in the world, I learned a lot from it and it made me a much better lawyer at the end of the day,” Miller said. “And I’m grateful for the disciplinary process and for the professionalism of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in how they handled it.”

Miller said that “Windy Boy is a liar,” and said he has evidence from his client that includes graphic texts and photos about the allegations. 

“I’m not surprised that a guy like Windy Boy would do something like this at all,” Miller said. “His thinking is distorted. Only a twisted person would do the kinds of things that he’s done.”

Windy Boy did not respond to calls or emails about his decision to restart his campaign, his health issues, or whether he will resign from the Legislature. 

In his statement, the lawmaker “suggested” the Montana Legislature “cease and desist any and all formal actions against him.”

On Monday, the Legislature’s Committee on Committees voted unanimously to remove Windy Boy from his interim committee assignments, at the request of Senate President Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, and Minority Leader Pat Flowers, D-Bozeman. 

A spokesperson for Senate Democrats said that they stand by their actions. 

“We believe the decision to remove him from his committee assignments in the interim was appropriate,” the spokesperson told the Daily Montanan. “Based on the evidence that we’ve seen, we continue to believe the best thing for Sen. Windy Boy and his constituents is for him to resign.”

HAMILTON — What if Montana could make it easier to pull rare earth minerals from mine waste and harder to open new mines, especially in pristine places?

What if business interests and environmental ones aligned?

Those were some of the ideas a scientist and numerous political candidates discussed Tuesday at a meeting about the controversial Sheep Creek mine “exploration” proposal at the headwaters of the Bitterroot River — a project opposed by people of all political persuasions in Ravalli County.

U.S. Critical Materials has proposed exploration for “rare earth” minerals, initially for 3.9 acres, to see if a full-scale mining operation is feasible. One of the presenters said three other companies are staking ground near those claims.

But members of the public have stridently opposed the idea, and in December, Ravalli County Commissioners unanimously opposed its placement on a federal “fast track” designed to improve permitting efficiency.

Tuesday, more than 130 people, including political candidates, showed up for an update on the project and its potential impacts, share ideas for stymieing it, and explore a way Montana could produce rare earth minerals — without Sheep Creek.

“This was once the Treasure State,” said Matt Roth, a Republican running for Ravalli County Commissioner. “We could be the Treasure State again.”

Seth Bodnar, running for the U.S. Senate as an independent, said national security is important, but that didn’t mean Montanans needed to risk their environment. The Green Beret and only statewide candidate at the meeting said Montanans don’t have to be “anti-business to be pro-environment.”

“The good news is we have plenty of critical minerals here in this country, and we don’t have to risk the Bitterroot (River) in this valley and the natural resources of this state to go and get them,” said Bodnar, former University of Montana president.

New application filed, still controversial

In a project update, Rep. David Bedey, R-Hamilton, said the Montana Department of Environmental Quality has received a request from a federal permitting council to enter into a memorandum of understanding to align state and federal permitting timelines.

Bedey, one of numerous political candidates who spoke, said the idea would be to “enhance efficiency by improving coordination, transparency and accountability.”

Bedey said he wasn’t sure what that would mean for Sheep Creek, but he also said he didn’t believe it would mean a less thorough environmental review.

“As of yesterday (Monday), DEQ is taking this proposal under consideration but has not made a decision as to whether to enter into this relationship with the federal government,” Bedey said.

But Bedey and others, including his primary opponent, Kathy Love, also offered ideas for making the Sheep Creek project unpalatable to mine.

For starters, Bedey said, bonding requirements are based on the estimated need to reclaim “the mine itself,” but such operations can have impacts far beyond the actual mines.

As such, Montana could enhance its bonding requirements to cover offsite risks, Bedey said. He said he couldn’t imagine the proposed Sheep Creek mine not creating “catastrophic effects” on the Bitterroot River and “everyone downstream.”

Bedey suggested either amending current statutes to incorporate environmental considerations or creating new statutes that introduce the idea of environmental bonds.

“It’s very difficult for me to see how that risk could be mitigated by a bond that could be affordable by any mining interest,” Bedey said.

Bedey also said the state limits the ability of DEQ to deny permits. He said offsite effects are not an allowable reason for a denial, but he believes that could be changed in existing statute, too.

According to the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Critical Materials rescinded its original proposal for Sheep Creek, and Bedey said the company refiled its application, although it hasn’t been made public yet.

A federal dashboard for infrastructure projects estimates environmental review and permitting will be complete in May 2027.

Love, a Republican running against Bedey, said she would be interested in legislation that could “go after anything that happens in the headwaters of a river,” although she also said the project is on federal land, the Bitterroot National Forest, so she doesn’t believe such a law would apply in this case.

In response to a question about one of U.S. Critical Materials’ earlier claims about “dry mining,” or using a method with ostensibly less risk to the river, Love said she was skeptical. She said the company’s estimates for the size of the project appear to have grown from three to five acres to as many as 7,000 acres.

“So I don’t trust anything that they’ve said,” Love said.

Representatives from U.S. Critical Materials did not appear to be present, prompting one presenter to say looking for their executives was “sort of like looking for a Yeti.”

Public safety concerns for Sheep Creek, but new ways emerge to mine old waste

At the request of moderator Tony Hudson, Sheriff Steve Holton weighed in on the project from a public safety perspective. Holton said the idea for the area — some 38 miles south of Darby, according to the Forest Service — had fallen short.

“There hasn’t been a single proposal or idea or any communication on how we’re going to provide public safety on that end of the valley,” Holton said. “My best guess is probably that’s a $500,000 a year hit to the county to provide what’s going to be necessary.”

Holton said he was open to discussions about how to move forward, but he said he wouldn’t be in favor of a public safety levy so “everybody here has to pay that bill.”

In fact, some of the candidates said it would be important to place small economic hurdles in front of the project, such as requirements for power lines and roads.

For example, Democratic state House candidate Bill Jones, running unopposed in the primary, said the state could mandate a company can’t drive on roads with heavy loads “unless they beef ‘em up.”

“They have to be conquered economically,” Jones said.

Democratic House candidate Archie Thomas, also unopposed in the primary, said President Donald Trump’s initiative to cut the federal government — DOGE, or the Department of Government Efficiency — would affect the project review. He pointed to lower staffing levels with the U.S. Forest Service and Environmental Protection Agency.

“When we go through this process, which we all assume is going to be a valid process, how is that going to work with the Forest Service that’s gutted out? How is that going to work when we take it to the EPA that’s gutted out?” Thomas said.

In an overview of the history of mining in Montana, presenter Philip Ramsey said the industry created prosperity for a few people, then a history of contamination and steep cleanup bills with executives nowhere in sight.

Now, with expertise from Montana Technological University in Butte and the Department of Defense, Ramsey said the state has the potential to recover critical minerals from mine waste. But he said policy changes are needed.

“Our laws make it more attractive to develop pristine public lands than to recover metals in waste zones,” Ramsey said. “That’s a policy failure. To fix it, we must have laws that favor re-mining waste first, reopening old mines second, and opening new mines upstream of flourishing recreational and agricultural economies dead last.”

Ravalli County residents have opposed the Sheep Creek project in part because it would take place near the headwaters of the Bitterroot River in an area with elk, wolverines, Canada lynx, and other wildlife. Opponents have said the closed basin where water is over-allocated is no place for a mine exploration.

‘Dark money’ a factor for public, some candidates

At the meeting, money in politics also played a role.

Jill Davies collected signatures for Constitutional Initiative 194, to prohibit corporations from spending money on political candidates or ballot issues, and moderator Hudson and others warned the public about dark money’s potential influence on the mine and on legislative candidates.

Montana’s congressional delegation has said the Sheep Creek proposal should have more support from the community in order to move ahead, and Hudson thanked Republican U.S. Sen. Tim Sheehy in particular for his quick action to oppose the project’s placement on the federal “fast track.”

FAST-41, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Title 41, is charged with increasing transparency in federal reviews and efficiency in permitting for certain infrastructure projects, including mining ones.

But Hudson said some outside involvement could be harmful, including Americans for Prosperity, funded by the billionaire Koch brothers. He said the Koch network spent $345 million in lobbying in 2024 alone, it has spent $400 million on the rare-earth industry, and it has a campaign running on how to expedite permits.

As such, Hudson urged the public to avoid legislative candidates endorsed by Americans for Prosperity, arguing some candidates may not recognize who they’re dealing with, but an endorsement means AFP “has got their hooks in a little bit.”

“I’m not saying they own them, but I’m telling you, these people are powerful,” Hudson said.

The Montana Supreme Court has ordered Attorney General Austin Knudsen to respond to a petition filed by Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell centering on whether local or county law enforcement officials are obligated to turn over criminal justice data to federal immigration officials, and whether that complies with Montana’s constitutional guarantee of personal privacy.

Knudsen has until the end of the business day on May 14 to respond to the petition, which also touches on whether the Attorney General’s Office can assert supervisory control over Gallatin County. The issue began with a legal disagreement about how local governments interact with Immigration and Customs Enforcement when they ask for information.

“Cromwell asserts she is entitled to declaratory judgment that declares Montana counties may not lawfully disseminate Confidential Criminal Justice Information (CCJI) to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) upon receiving non-criminal civil or administrative requests without a court order,” the Supreme Court order reads.

Cromwell has also requested the Supreme Court order the AG’s office to terminate supervisory control over the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office.

“Every day that supervisory control is in effect undermines public trust and diverts resources from the critical civil and criminal prosecution work necessary for Gallatin County to function,” Cromwell’s May 1 petition to the Montana Supreme Court reads.

It also said the confusion around the law was a serious, statewide issue.

“The conflict between governing Montana law and the Attorney General’s unsupported, informal interpretation of the same has created confusion far beyond Gallatin County. County attorneys statewide must choose between potentially improper disclosure of CCJI — a violation of the Montana Constitution’s Right to Privacy and associated statutes — or the threat of losing control over their elected offices,” the petition reads.

On April 30, the state DOJ took over the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office and quickly moved to try and stop the petition to state Supreme Court, which Cromwell filed on May 1. Three days later, Knudsen sent a letter telling them to drop it and to sever their representation agreement with Graybill Law Firm. Cromwell hired the law firm to represent her office as the dispute escalated.

The state Department of Justice hasn’t commented on the takeover to the Daily Montanan.

“Cromwell and her colleagues across the state are being forced to weigh their oath to the Montana Constitution and its individual privacy provisions, as well as their duties to protect their clients from needless liability, against the threat of an extraordinary and novel exercise of executive power — all without the benefit and protection of Montana legal authority,” said the petition to the high court.

Knudsen and Cromwell have gone back-and-forth this year on the issue. Immigration appears to be a focus of Knudsen, who, along with fellow Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte, put pressure on Helena to rescind a resolution on the topic. The city ultimately did, after significant public debate and multiple hours-long meetings this winter and spring.

Cromwell order

Ted Turner, one of Montana’s largest private land owners and a media mogul best known for founding CNN, died on Wednesday in his home in Florida at the age of 87, according to a press release from Turner Enterprises.

Turner revolutionized the daily news cycle by founding CNN as the first 24-hour network, as well as many other well-known stations including TBS, TNT and Cartoon Network.

He was also known for his active ownership of the Atlanta Braves and Atlanta Hawks, his work as a philanthropist — he once donated a billion dollars to support the United Nations — his chain of Ted’s Montana Grill restaurants which feature bison burgers, and as an environmentalist dedicated to preserving land and animal species, such as his 45,000-head herd of bison.

At one point he was the largest private landowner in the United States, and Turner Enterprises has said Turner’s properties included nearly two million acres of personal and ranch land.

The 550,000-acre Vermejo Ranch in New Mexico is the largest contiguous private holding in America, and in Montana Turner’s properties included the flagship 113,000-acre Flying D Ranch south of Bozeman.

By Naisha Roy/Medill News Service

WASHINGTON — Dozens of people gathered on a sandy lot in front of the White House construction zone Tuesday evening, carrying posters peppered with monarch butterflies and unfurling massive banners reading “Set kids free.”

The butterflies symbolized immigrants without legal status, as the protesters called to abolish all detention facilities in the United States as part of a “Close the Camps” vigil and protest organized by the Coalition to End Family and Child Detention.

“Migration is beautiful,” said Anat Shenker-Osorio, a communications manager for advocacy groups that helped organize the event. “People move, and that should be celebrated.”

Many of the protesters were from Texas, rallying against the conditions in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Dilley Immigration Processing Center south of San Antonio. 

Over the last few months, several advocacy group reports and lawsuits have alleged the facility lacks potable drinking water, healthcare, adequate food and clean clothing for detainees, many of whom are children.

“Families are reporting worms and mold in the food that’s making children ill,” said Trudy Taylor Smith, a policy administrator for the Children’s Defense Fund in Texas who was at the protest. “They are reporting a lack of access to clean drinking water. The tap smells foul. It’s making children sick, and yet if people want to avoid the tap and access clean water, they have to pay their own money to buy bottled water from the commissary.”

Democrats demand release of families

Dilley is the larger of two facilities in the country that hold immigrant families with children. Both had been shuttered for nearly four years, until the Trump administration reopened them in early 2025. 

Since then, children at the Dilley detention center reported feeling “sadness and depression,” in handwritten letters to ProPublica news reporters. They also wrote about losing their appetites and missing home. 

On the same day as the protest, a delegation of congressional Democrats led by Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, visited the Dilley facility and urged the Department of Homeland Security to release all families detained there. The delegation included Reps. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas; Christian Menefee, D-Texas; Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz.; Henry Cuellar, D-Texas; Mark Takano, D-Calif.; and Chellie Pingree, D-Maine.

“The kids, as you can imagine, were distraught. They were sobbing most of the time that we were with them,” Castro said after the inspection. “When it comes to the Dilley detention center, it’s one horror after another and one abuse after another.”

The Trump administration has denied the reports of mistreatment in Dilley, saying in a press release that all detainees have access to educational resources, infant care packages and regular medical screenings. “In most cases, this is the best healthcare illegal aliens have received in their entire lives,” the release reads.

Single mothers detained with children

Dianne Garcia, a pastor at San Antonio’s Roca de Refugio Church, led the protest with a moment of silence in honor of those detained and deported. so far. Garcia has seen 18 people in her community detained, including several single mothers sent to Dilley with their children.

“I knew a 3-year-old. He used to be the most gregarious kid,” she said. “Now he’s afraid all the time, always by his mother’s side.”

About 1 in 3 Texan children have an immigrant parent, per the Migration Policy Institute. 

The Austin school district lost over 3,000 students this year, partly because parents feared sending their kids to school amid immigration sweeps.  

“When children don’t feel safe to go to school, when enrollment drops, that means teachers are laid off, that means they lose funding,” Taylor Smith said.

Despite this, the Trump administration has announced plans to expand holding areas for children. 

Many demonstrators spoke out against a proposed detention center in Alexandria, Louisiana, set to be a “short-term facility,” where migrant families and unaccompanied children would be held for three to five days. 

Trump administration officials have said the facility will only temporarily house people who have agreed to “self-deport,” or leave the country voluntarily.

The detention facility’s construction was sited inside the Alexandria International Airport complex, across from the tarmac. U.S. officials deport hundreds of immigrants without legal status every day on ICE-contracted planes from this airport. 

Already, an investigation by The Guardian found the former military facility to be heavily contaminated with PFAS, toxic “forever chemicals” directly linked to cancer and other diseases. 

‘The same thing as being in a cage’

The protest organizers hoped to prevent more detention centers, and abolish the ones that already exist. Some attendees were former detainees, like Sulma Franco, who came to the United States in 2009 from Guatemala and was immediately sent to a facility by the Border Patrol. She called the detention center where she was held a hielera, or icebox, referencing the frigid temperature. 

“Being in a detention center is the same thing as being in a cage or being in jail,” she said, in an interview conducted in Spanish. “I believe the solution isn’t improvement; the solution is to close them permanently.”

Shenker-Osorio, the communications manager, said part of the protest’s goal was to maintain pressure on the White House and shift the rhetoric around how detention is discussed. 

Instead of “facilities,” for example, some of those at the event specifically chose to use the word “camps,” referencing the similarity in conditions to Nazi concentration camps. 

The coalition has a policy working group that communicates with Congress, with the ultimate aim of passing legislation banning family detention.

“This isn’t a difficult moral question,” Taylor Smith said. “Children don’t belong in cages.”

Medill News Service articles are reported and written by graduate student journalists in the Washington program of the Medill School at Northwestern University.

• 3:29 pmThis report has been clarified as to who was making comparisons with concentration camps.

A quarter of immigration arrests since August were labeled by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as “collateral,” a type of arrest and detention that’s been challenged in court as an end run around civil rights.

Public outrage and lawsuits over the arrests may be tamping down the large-scale sweeps that foster them, but tens of thousands were arrested this way between August and early March.

Immigration arrests are usually based on warrants obtained ahead of time, showing either a removal order from immigration court or evidence of a crime or charge that makes the person subject to deportation.

But collateral arrests can result from street sweeps and raids in which a person is singled out for questioning based on appearance or proximity to someone wanted on a warrant. That person could be taken into custody if agents think they may be subject to deportation and also likely to flee if released.

Labeled for the first time ever, the collateral arrests are reported from August to early March in ICE arrest data obtained by the Deportation Data Project and analyzed by Stateline. In that time there were about 64,000 collateral arrests, a quarter of the 253,000 total arrests by ICE.

About 70% of the collateral arrests were for people with immigration-related crimes or violations alone, compared with 41% for arrests with warrants. Less than 2% of those with collateral arrests were convicted of a violent crime, one-third the rate of other arrests, and only 18% were convicted of any crime, compared with 33% for other arrests.

The collateral arrests contributed to an overall pattern of lower and lower shares of arrests for serious crimes, and more for immigration offenses alone.

Arrests climbed from about 12,000 in January 2025 to more than 40,000 in December, but fell back to 30,000 this February. The share of people with only immigration-related crimes and violations rose to more than half in December and January, the peak months for collateral arrests, and the share of violent criminals fell from 10% to 4% of arrests in that time.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}}); New policy

ICE announced a new policy in January to issue warrants in real time if agents think an immigrant is deportable and “likely to escape,” though that policy faces a court challenge.

Total arrests and collateral arrests have been falling since December, whether because of the new policy or because of cutbacks in the large-scale street sweeps that tend to produce them.

One factor is public outrage over raids sweeping up noncriminals in places like Minneapolis and Chicago, said Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, an associate policy analyst for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

“The sort of large operations within big cities, as they were occurring, seems to have subsided somewhat,” Putzel-Kavanaugh said. “After the kind of public outcry following Minneapolis, it seems as though, at least for now, that tactic has kind of been paused.”

The Trump administration’s focus on mass deportation opened the way for more collateral street arrests with less investigation, she added.

“If it’s a more targeted arrest, they would take the time to sort of essentially have an investigation. It’s a pretty resource-intensive way that just would not yield the kind of numbers ICE was being told to produce,” she said.

The new policy was filed in court papers in February as a response to a lawsuit over ICE sweeps in the District of Columbia last year, alleging ICE agents “have flooded the streets of the nation’s capital, indiscriminately arresting without warrants and without probable cause District residents whom the agents perceive to be Latino.”

The case resulted in a preliminary injunction in December requiring a halt to warrantless arrests without establishing probable cause that the person is living here illegally and is a flight risk.

One plaintiff in the class-action case, José Escobar Molina, said in the lawsuit that agents in two cars pulled up to him as he approached his work truck on Aug. 21, grabbing him by the arms and legs and handcuffing him without asking any questions. Escobar, 47, said in the court papers that he’s lived in the district for 25 years and has had temporary protected status as a Salvadoran native the whole time. He was held overnight in Virginia before being released.

Other lawsuits are also challenging collateral arrests, such as an incident in Idaho in which agents with warrants for five people ended up arresting 105 immigrants at a Latino community event in October.

In North Carolina, four U.S. citizens and a visa holder sued in February, saying they were arrested in the Charlotte’s Web immigration crackdown in November without warrants, as is typical of collateral arrests.

I have a lot of fear that this will happen to me again. I was essentially kidnapped based only on the color of my skin. That really weighs on me.

– Yoshi Cuenca Villamar, a U.S. citizen arrested while landscaping

“I have a lot of fear that this will happen to me again. I was essentially kidnapped based only on the color of my skin. That really weighs on me,” said Yoshi Cuenca Villamar, one of the citizens and a North Carolina native, in a statement announcing the lawsuit. He said he was doing landscaping work Nov. 15 when agents pushed him to the ground and handcuffed him, then held him in a car before releasing him.

One Illinois case that started in the first Trump administration challenged warrantless arrests and traffic stops used as a pretext for immigration arrests. A 2022 settlement required ICE to document “reasonable suspicion” of illegal status before arresting somebody. The case continues since a judge found in February that the new ICE policy of issuing warrants in real time after a detention violates the consent decree.

Shares of collateral arrests

In the months since August where collateral arrests are now labeled, the District of Columbia and Illinois stand out with high shares of collateral arrests. More than half the arrests in the district were collateral, as were 41% of those in Illinois. There were eight states in which at least 30% of arrests were collateral: Alabama, Maryland, West Virginia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine and Minnesota.

West Virginia, where there was a “statewide surge” of immigration enforcement in January with state and local cooperation, stands out for its high rate of total arrests as well as a large share of collateral arrests.

ICE labeled 1,300 arrests during Operation Metro Surge as ‘collateral’

For the eight months between August and early March, West Virginia had 1,831 arrests, or 1 in 10 of the state’s noncitizen population as of 2024, the latest data available. That’s by far the largest share in the country, followed by 7% in Wyoming (where truck drivers were targeted for immigration arrests in February) and 4% in Mississippi.

West Virginia Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey, in a statement, cited the cooperation of state and local agencies with ICE through the 287(g) program that assists with immigration enforcement. He praised ICE, saying “they have removed dangerous illegal immigrants from our communities and made our state safer for families and law-abiding citizens.”

Few of those arrested in the surge were violent criminals, however. More than half of those arrested during the surge were collateral arrests, and only 1% — nine immigrants — had a violent crime conviction, according to the Stateline analysis. More than three-quarters, about 500 people, had only an immigration-related violation or crime.

Judges didn’t always agree that collateral arrests and detentions in the West Virginia surge were legal under the U.S. Constitution. U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin, a Clinton appointee, ordered two detainees released in January. He noted that “similar seizures and detentions are occurring frequently across the country” without any evidence they’re necessary as required by the Constitution.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

During the last several months, NorthWestern Energy has vehemently denied that data centers are behind its desire to “merge” with another South Dakota utility, Black Hills Energy. However, when company executives announced the deal to investors, they repeatedly pointed to data centers as a top reason for the two utilities’ efforts. 

NorthWestern is currently asking the Montana Public Service Commission to approve the so-called “merger” without considering any information regarding the 14 proposed data center projects that NorthWestern mentioned on an investor call earlier this year, and NorthWestern has refused to answer any questions in the PSC proceeding regarding data centers. NorthWestern’s desire to keep this information secret from the PSC and its customers should raise red flags for all Montanans. If we aren’t careful, we are going to get burned – as has happened to millions of utility customers across the country when data centers come to town. 

When announcing the deal on August 19, 2025, NorthWestern CEO Brian Bird told investors that merging NorthWestern with Black Hills Energy would help both utilities be “more competitive” in the race to “capture data center opportunities” and would enable them to “make strategic investments that foster economic development, including addressing the growing demand for energy, including from data centers.” 

While states around the country are taking action to prevent unregulated data centers from disrupting communities, harming water resources, and increasing electricity rates, Montanans are vulnerable. The Legislature has given sweetheart property tax deals to data centers and has systematically undermined local control, limiting the power of county commissions to protect rural communities. Our governor, a tech millionaire, is eager to sell out Montana communities and homeowners to his tech friends. And NorthWestern continues to keep its deals with data centers secret. We are vulnerable.

To be clear, NorthWestern is about to get swallowed up. NorthWestern Energy currently serves about 700,000 electric and gas customers in Montana and 150,000 gas and electric customers in South Dakota and Nebraska. After the merger, the new company’s service territory would include another 1.35 million gas and electric customers from Black Hills Energy in an additional five states. The newly-formed mega monopoly would provide electricity and gas in eight states, amounting to a service area of about 20% of the United States, according to NorthWestern’s CEO.

A majority of the board members for the new company, Bright Horizons Energy Corporation, will be from Black Hills Energy. The behemoth multi-state monopoly utility will not need to prioritize Montanans – except as far as the state will help the new company meet its data center goals.

In fact, it increasingly appears that Montana will be a cash cow for this enormous new monopoly. NorthWestern and Black Hills refuse to be transparent about their plans to serve data centers or disclose how that could impact Montanans, who have already seen a nearly 40% increase in electric rates in the last few years. We should not be kept in the dark about the new utility’s data center agreements that are likely to enrich utility shareholders at our expense. 

MEIC has spent months visiting numerous communities across the state to educate and answer questions about data center risks and impacts. Based on the hundreds of people we’ve met and thousands who have signed petitions against unregulated data centers in Montana, it has become clear that this is truly a bipartisan issue that is extremely concerning to Montanans. 

We need bipartisan politicians at every level of government who are willing to challenge NorthWestern’s secrecy and monopolistic instinct and to protect everyday Montanans — and our water and our communities —from subsidizing data centers. We can protect ourselves, but we need politicians who are willing to do so on our behalf. 

The PSC hearing begins on May 12, with public comment at the beginning of each day. 

Anne Hedges is the Executive Director of the Montana Environmental Information Center.

The city of Whitefish reached a settlement agreement with a man who accused police of violating his constitutional rights and racial profiling after a traffic stop resulted in his detention in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. 

Whitefish police said they pulled over Beker Rengifo Del Castillo for a faulty taillight in April 2025, then called U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Del Castillo was held in a federal detention center in Tacoma, Washington, for nearly a week, “a horrific and traumatic experience,” according to court documents. 

Whitefish agreed to a $90,000 settlement to resolve the case against the city, Police Chief Bridger Kelch and officer Michael Hingiss, who conducted the stop. 

“This should send a clear message to law enforcement agencies across Montana that untrained local police officers should not play border cop,” Andres Haladay, senior staff attorney at Upper Seven Law representing Del Castillo, said in a statement. “When police conduct immigration investigations based on the color of someone’s skin or the language they speak, it violates the constitution, breaches community trust, and wastes taxpayer dollars.”

Del Castillo, 33, is a Venezuelan citizen who was leaving a job near Whitefish Lake on April 24 last year when Hingiss stopped him, allegedly for a broken brake light, according to the lawsuit filed in August.

A statement from the law firm says that during the traffic stop, Beker presented a valid, unexpired REAL ID-compliant driver’s license along with vehicle registration and insurance documents. 

But Hingiss called Customs and Border Protection “due to a language barrier,” according to the complaint, and then left Del Castillo with a federal officer to “continue” an immigration investigation. The Border Patrol agent noted that Del Castillo may have had legal status, the complaint states.

Del Castillo entered the United States in July 2024 through the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela Parole Program. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved Del Castillo’s application for work authorization on July 23, 2024, and issued him a Social Security number, according to court documents. 

Del Castillo was held in the Tacoma facility for nearly a week before being released with no explanation. 

The suit against the city of Whitefish included five separate counts — one count of unconstitutional seizure, one count of false arrest, one count of negligence and two counts of failure to train. 

All were dismissed with prejudice. 

According to a press release from the city, the terms of the settlement include no admission of wrongdoing by the city.

“The city stands firmly behind its local law enforcement officers who are tasked with performing an increasingly difficult job in rapidly changing circumstances, both on a state and federal level,” according to the press statement. 

City Manager Dana Meeker said the city agreed to the settlement because the cost of continued litigation would “far exceed” the settlement amount. 

The $90,000 will be paid by the city’s insurance provider, Montana Municipal Interlocal Authority.

A large logging project near Cooke City and an entrance to Yellowstone National Park has been scrubbed by the U. S. Forest Service after conservation groups challenged the federal government, saying it was using unproven methods at the risk of several endangered species.

The Cooke City Fuels Project was withdrawn by the  Forest Service and would have encompassed 19,921 acres. The purpose was to reduce the amount of fuels in order to reduce the threat of wildfire using a number of techniques, including “daylight thinning.” The Forest Service would have removed other trees and brush around the endangered Whitebark Pine trees as a means to bolster their chances of survival. However, the conservation groups which challenged the project said that there was no scientific research validating the technique.

Three conservation groups and an individual who brought the legal action in federal court said that the Forest Service’s own plans and documents outlining the project included the admission that the technique could wind up harming the pine tree stands, as well as imperil the habitat of other threatened or endangered species, including Canada lynx and grizzly bears.

Whitebark pine trees are threatened and considered a “keystone species.” They are susceptible to a disease, whitebark pine blister rust, and need the cool to cold climates of high elevations, which has been increasingly limited because of climate change. 

The plan for the Cooke City project also estimated that the net loss to the American taxpayers would be $2.8 million if the project was completed.

On Thursday, Clint Kolarich, the Gardiner District Ranger signed off on the notice of withdrawal, saying that Jacqueline Buchanan, Deputy Chief for Ecosystem Management Coordination, authorized withdrawal of the decision.

The lawsuit had also claimed that the Forest Service disregarded wide swaths of designated Canada lynx habitat. Also, the suit pointed out that increased logging activities and road building in the area would disrupt grizzly bear habitat.

“The Forest Service claimed the project was going to protect Cooke City from wildfire, but the plan called for logging well beyond the wildland urban interface – which is why the vast majority of Cooke City residents who commented opposed the project,” said Mike Garrity of Alliance for the Wild Rockies, one of the groups that challenged the project. “We won on this issue when the federal district court ruled in our favor and stopped the Round Star logging project in the Flathead National Forest. We hope the Forest Service will now work to protect Cooke City from wildfires by helping residents ‘harden’ their homes against wildfires by having non-flammable roofs and decks and trimming trees next to their homes, not logging roadless areas miles away.”

WASHINGTON — The alleged White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooter was indicted by a grand jury Tuesday on four federal charges, including attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump and assaulting an officer or employee of the United States with a deadly weapon.

The three-page indictment alleges 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen, of California, “knowingly and by means and use of a deadly and dangerous weapon” forcibly assaulted, intimidated or interfered with an unidentified U.S. Secret Service agent who was hit with one bullet in his protective vest while working a security checkpoint outside the annual dinner. The agent was uninjured.

The indictment does not specify whether Allen fired the shot that hit the agent.

Allen was also indicted on transporting a firearm over state lines with intent to commit a felony, and using, brandishing or discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. 

Shotgun, pistol and wire cutters

The indictment specifies Allen transported a 12-gauge pump action shotgun with 45 rounds of ammunition, and a .38 caliber semi-automatic pistol with 55 rounds of ammunition.

Government prosecutors in a court filing prior to the indictment alleged Allen also had on him “two knives, four daggers, multiple sheaths, multiple holsters, needle nose pliers, (and) wire cutters.”

The Department of Justice initially charged Allen on three of the grand jury indictment counts, with the exception of assaulting a federal officer or employee.

Allen is scheduled to be arraigned in federal district court Monday in Washington, D.C.

He faces up to life in prison if convicted of attempting to kill the president.

Black-tie dinner

Allen allegedly rushed a security checkpoint one level above the Washington Hilton ballroom on April 25 where Trump, Vice President JD Vance and several Cabinet officials were among thousands of journalists, government officials and celebrities attending the black-tie event that dates back a century.

Shortly before he ran through a magnetometer, with a long gun in hand, at 8:40 p.m., Allen sent an email to friends and family explaining he intended to target “administration officials … prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest.”

Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet members all safely evacuated the ballroom. 

The Secret Service agent, whose vest protected him from gunfire, is referred to in court filings as V.G. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told reporters April 27 that a ballistics investigation had not yet been completed, and would not answer whether Allen fired the bullet that hit the agent.

V.G. fired five rounds from his service weapon in Allen’s direction, but did not hit the suspect who fell to the ground and sustained minor injuries, according to a signed affidavit from law enforcement filed in court April 27.

Trump publicly shared photos on his social media platform Truth Social the day following the dinner of a shirtless and handcuffed Allen face down on the hotel carpet Saturday night.

WASHINGTON — Get off the train at Union Station, walk outside and gasp at that iconic view of the Capitol dome in front of you. 

Cross the street and the first thing you run into is a construction site surrounding walled-off Columbus Circle. On the wall is a huge poster of President Donald Trump wearing a hard hat (and a coat and tie).

“Thank you, PRESIDENT TRUMP,” the sign says.

That’s just the start of what a tourist will encounter as they sightsee in the heart of the nation’s capital. Or these days, the nation’s capital as brought to you by Donald Trump.

The Trump reminders are all over. Walk the tourist walk from the Capitol down and around Pennsylvania Avenue, past the White House and on to the Lincoln Memorial and it’s clear who’s in charge.

Whether or not this is affecting tourism is unclear. Destination DC, a nonprofit organization that markets the area as a global tourist destination, doesn’t keep month-to-month data. It found in 2024, before the Trump boom, a record 27.2 million people visited the city.

“Tourists who are pro-Trump will be drawn to his eponymous sites. Those who oppose him will not. Most tourists will pay no attention to his projects but will enjoy all the historic and exciting venues and exhibits in Washington,” said Barbara Perry, professor in Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center 

She said Trump’s propensity to “destroy, rebuild, construct, and name numerous sites and institutions for himself is most unusual.”

Trump likenesses 

Trump detailed his plans in a March, 2025, executive order, “Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful.”

“Its highways, boulevards, and parks should be clean, well-kept, and pleasant,” he said of the nation’s capital. “Its monuments, museums, and buildings should reflect and inspire awe and appreciation for our Nation’s strength, greatness, and heritage. Our citizens deserve nothing less.” 

Previous incumbent presidents’ pictures were usually confined to 8-by-10 portraits hanging in post offices or deep inside other federal buildings, as they were careful not to splatter their names and likenesses so publicly.

“Typical presidents want to avoid looking arrogant by honoring themselves while in office or even after—except for their presidential libraries, starting with FDR. They usually feel humbled if a Navy ship, for example, is named for them while they are extant: Bush I and Ford come to mind,” Perry said of former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford.

Both served in the Navy and saw combat in the South Pacific.

Democrats are furious about the Trump makeover. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, calls Trump’s actions “narcissism” and is pushing the “Stop Executive Renaming for Vanity and Ego Act.”

“Donald Trump doesn’t get to slap his name on any public institution he chooses. We don’t have kings or dictators in America, and this legislation stops him or any future sitting president from creating monuments to glorify themselves,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

The bill is likely to go nowhere in the Republican-run Congress.

So for now, tourists can stroll around the Mall and see how Trump has tried to transform the nation’s capital.

Starting at the Capitol and heading south down Constitution Avenue until it splits off to Pennsylvania Avenue, here goes:

Albert Pike statue

Status: Installed at Judiciary Square, about four blocks from the Capitol.

Details: “The only public sculpture in DC to commemorate a Confederate general,” says the DC Historic Sites team website. Pike was a slave owner and a senior officer in the Confederate Army.

The memorial was “toppled and burned on Juneteenth of 2020, as protests continued across the country in response to the murder of George Floyd,” the website says. Floyd was a Black man killed by a white policeman in Minneapolis, sparking protests around the country.

Last year, the Trump administration had the Pike statue restored and placed at its present location. 

The action was part of an executive order Trump issued in March 2025. He ordered a review of memorials or statues that had been “removed or changed to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history, inappropriately minimize the value of certain historical events or figures, or include any other improper partisan ideology.” 

The order also affected the Smithsonian Institution, which Trump said “has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology.” 

Trump banners on federal buildings

Status: Huge banners with Trump’s face hang from the Judiciary and Labor Departments.

Details: “American Workers First” says the Labor banner, with Trump’s vastly enlarged face atop the saying. Another banner features President Theodore Roosevelt. 

The banners, which cover almost three stories of the building, are visible from both heavily-trafficked Constitution and Pennsylvania avenues.

About six blocks away, on Pennsylvania Avenue at the Justice Department — which a few years ago investigated Trump for possible crimes — there’s a new, three-story banner where he looks down at the street atop the saying “Make American Safe Again.”

When the Labor banner went up, then-Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer told Trump about it at a Cabinet meeting, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

“Mr. President, I invite you to see your big, beautiful face on a banner in front of the Department of Labor because you are really the transformational president of the American worker,” she told him.

Bonus sighting: As you walk along Pennsylvania Avenue, don’t miss another “Thank You, President Trump” banner hanging on a construction wall across from the National Gallery of Art near 4th Street.

White House ballroom

Status: Walk up Pennsylvania Avenue starting at the 1500 block and you’ll see the White House East Wing is gone. It’s a rubble-laden construction site now, where Trump is trying to build a 90,000 square foot ballroom with a military installation underneath. The project is to be privately funded, though Senate Republicans are seeking $1 billion for security in an immigration bill.

Details: The project is embroiled in a still-evolving legal battle. The April 25 assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where a gunman threatened the president and top officials, may be changing minds.

Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Montana,  last month introduced legislation to authorize the ballroom. “A President of any party should be able to host events in a secure area without attendees worrying about their safety. This is common sense. Let’s get it done,” he tweeted.

Last week, Justice sought to have the lawsuit dismissed. “This (ballroom) project will ensure that events like the horrific attack on Saturday night do not happen again,” it argued.

Reflecting Pool

Status: Keep walking toward Constitution Avenue. You’ll see the Reflecting Pool between the World War II Memorial and the Lincoln Memorial. Renovations are underway and expected to be completed by July 4. The pool is being cleaned and painted blue.

Details: The pool has often been criticized for being dirty and leaking. 

Trump’s effort is going a step farther than others who have launched renovation and cleaning projects. He said the project will cost $2 million, far less than other recent refurbishing efforts, according to his TruthSocial website.

“It was filthy dirty and it leaked like a sieve for many years,” Trump said in a video posted to the site. 

He’s having it painted “swimming pool blue,” a color that appalls many preservationists.  

Kennedy Center

Details: The city’s premier cultural center is about a 20-minute walk away. Perhaps no Trump change has provoked more outrage among his Washington critics than his renaming of the capital’s cultural center.

He said during a visit to the center in March 2025 that “it needs a lot of work,” adding it should have better seats and more “Broadway hits.”

The president overhauled its governance, creating a board that named him the center’s chairman, changed programming to suit his tastes, and announced the center would close this summer for two years for renovations.

Status: While the center’s board renamed the site the Trump-Kennedy Center, Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, an ex officio member of the board, has taken legal action in federal court seeking to stop the name change, saying only Congress can do so. The case is pending.

Monumental Arch

Details: Trump wants to build a 250 foot arch — taller than the nearby Lincoln Memorial and the tallest in the world — at the traffic circle at the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery on the Virginia side of the Potomac River. The circle leads to the Memorial Bridge across the Potomac, connecting to the Lincoln Memorial.

Status: The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, packed with Trump appointees, approved the arch’s concept design in April. 

The arch, the commission said in its approval letter, “would contribute positively to the honorific landscape of Washington, D.C., for many generations.” It requested more information for the next phase, including plans for better pedestrian access and sculptures.

Court battles await, notably from a group of Vietnam veterans and others. 

They say the arch would distort the clear view from the cemetery to the Lincoln Memorial, as well as disrupt the symbolism of the bridge, designed to join the North and South.

Off the usual paths

Go away from the main tourist routes and there’s yet more evidence of the Trump rebranding. The United States National Institute of Peace is now the Donald J. Trump National Institute of Peace. The change is meant “to reflect the greatest dealmaker in our nation’s history,” said a State Department tweet.

Then there’s what tourists won’t see.

“Visitors who take the garden tour of the White House this spring will miss the beautiful Rose Garden outside the West Wing and the Jackie Kennedy Garden outside the East Wing, of blessed memory,” said Perry. “Both gardens, planned by the Kennedys, plus the East Wing itself have been obliterated by the incumbent.” 

The Rose Garden, the White House says, “was turned into a patio with roses lining the perimeter, developing a space dedicated to hospitality and entertaining. Today, the Rose Garden is used to host many guests of the president for events and dinners.” 

East Potomac Golf Course

While the East Potomac Golf Course isn’t right on the main tourist route, it’s just off to the side on an island not far from the Jefferson Memorial, with a view of the Washington Monument. The Trump administration has reportedly wanted to close and then revamp the historic site. Preservationists and local folks are furious.

Reports say he wants to convert it to a championship golf course — one that some think will make it an exclusive club, instead of the current affordable public setup that’s popular with locals. NOTUS wrote that the National Park Service is scheduled to start landscaping.

The links currently have two nine-hole courses, an 18-hole par 72 course, miniature golf, a driving range and a restaurant. 

The D.C. Preservation League and two local residents Sunday asked a District Court judge to halt any Trump project. 

“Trump is taking a public park away from the American people while spending their hard-earned taxpayer dollars to build a private, elite club from which he’d personally profit,” Democracy Defenders Fund Executive Chair Norm Eisen said in a statement.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes on Monday did not stop the project, saying reports about the course’s overhaul did not provide enough evidence for her to act, but she warned that if she sees that certain renovations are underway she could reconsider.

National Mall Superintendent Kevin Griess said Monday there were no plans to begin renovation work but a safety assessment was underway, The Associated Press reported.

Following the takeover of the Gallatin County Attorney General’s Office by the state, Attorney General Austin Knudsen is now telling the county to drop its own petition to the Supreme Court against the state.

On April 30, the AG’s office took “supervisory control” over the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office, alleging they had policies that violated state law. Gallatin County attorney Audrey Cromwell has said — and swore an affidavit to the effect — the policy in question doesn’t exist.

The county then looked to the Montana Supreme Court for clarification on the issue, filing a petition for relief on May 1. Three days later, on May 4, Knudsen sent a letter telling Gallatin County to drop the petition to the supreme court.

“You are hereby ordered and directed to dismiss this matter immediately,” Knudsen’s May 4 letter reads. “The Gallatin County Attorney’s Office is further directed to terminate its representation agreement with the Graybill Law Firm.”

As part of the ongoing controversy, Cromwell hired the Graybill Law Firm to represent her and assist her in the appeal to the Montana Supreme Court. The law firm continues to represent Cromwell, they confirmed on Tuesday.

The controversy stems from how Gallatin County interacts with federal immigration officials, especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  Last year, ICE requested confidential criminal justice information from Gallatin County. The county said ICE was acting in a civil capacity when they requested it, not as a law enforcement agency.

For that reason, the county attorney’s office said ICE had to go through a separate procedure to obtain the information it wanted since the Montana Constitution guarantees a right to privacy. Knudsen has said ICE is a law enforcement agency in all contexts –civil and criminal — under the law and directed Cromwell to issue a memo saying that.

“I respectfully request that you immediately recognize ICE in toto as a criminal justice agency in accordance with state law,” an April 23 letter from Knudsen to Cromwell reads.

Cromwell has brought up Montana’s right to privacy in a series of letters that have been sent between the two. She has also requested a clarification from Knudsen’s office via advisory opinion, an option which Knudsen has as the Attorney General of Montana. 

Advisory opinions are written by the Attorney General’s Office and have the force of case law until a court decides a legal question. The Attorney General can issue an advisory opinion on any matter of law, if requested by a public official or he chooses. However, he is not mandated to issue one.

So far, Knudsen has rebuffed Cromwell’s requests.

Graybill responded to Knudsen’s order for Cromwell to withdraw her legal challenge to the takeover of the office. Included in that appeal to Montana’s highest court is the legal question of whether the right-to-privacy extends to criminal justice data and federal authorities.   

“(The Supreme Court petition) raises, among other issues, the lawfulness of your decision to assert supervisory control over County Attorney Cromwell’s office,” a May 4 letter from the law firm to Knudsen reads. “That question is now before the Montana Supreme Court, which will decide whether to exercise its jurisdiction. This office is unaware of any authority stating that an Attorney General’s decision to invoke supervisory control under § 2-15-501(5), MCA, is immune from judicial review.”

AG Supervisory Control Cromwell v. Knudsen 5.4.26

Two hikers on the Mystic Falls Trail near Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park sustained injuries by one or more bears on Monday, according to the National Park Service.

The status of the hikers, and the number and type of bears involved were not included in information released about the incident.

Emergency services personnel with the Park Service responded to the incident and it is under investigation.

This is the first bear-human conflict resulting in an injury in the park for 2026. The last time a visitor was injured by a bear was in September of last year.

The last human fatality in Yellowstone from a bear attack occurred in 2015.

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte on Wednesday announced his appointment of Rebecca Swandal to serve on the Sixth Judicial District Court, which comprises Park and Sweet Grass Counties.

Swandal will fill the vacancy created by District Judge Brenda Gilbert’s retirement.

 “Rebecca is an accomplished attorney who brings both civil and criminal experience, serving Montanans in Park and Sweet Grass counties for over a decade,” Gianforte said in a statement. “I look forward to her service on the Sixth Judicial District Court.”

According to a press release from the governor’s office, Swandal graduated from the University of Montana in 2005 and the University of Montana School of Law in 2009. She has served as an attorney for 13 years with the law office formed by her grandmother in 1967.

 Judge Gilbert announced her retirement in February, and will end her tenure on the court June 1. 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans released a roughly $70 billion spending package Monday night that will keep Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol operating for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term without any of the new constraints Democrats have demanded.

The legislation also includes $1 billion “to support enhancements by the United States Secret Service relating to the East Wing Modernization Project, including above-ground and below-ground security features.”

Trump, who had the East Wing of the White House bulldozed to make way for his $300 or $400 million ballroom project, had said it would be funded by private donors and not taxpayers. White House officials have said the ballroom is critical for national security when top officials are gathered, following an April 25 incident in which a gunman opened fire at a dinner at the Washington Hilton attended by Trump.

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement the panel “is taking action to help provide certainty for federal law enforcement and safer streets for American families.” 

“We will work to ensure this critical funding gets signed into law without unnecessary delay,” he added. 

Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said in a statement the package shows “Republicans are ignoring the needs of middle-class America and instead funneling money into Trump’s ballroom and throwing billions at two lawless agencies.”

He noted the Department of Homeland Security has more than $100 billion from Republicans’ signature tax and spending cuts package it hasn’t spent. 

“Throughout this process, Democrats will continue to show the American people that we are for bringing down costs, making it easier to get ahead, and building an economy where families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share,” Merkley said. “It is clear that the country has had enough of the Republican ‘families lose, billionaires win’ agenda.”

Billions for immigration enforcement

The package’s release follows a record-setting shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security that began after the two parties were unable to reach a compromise on new guardrails for immigration operations after federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January.  

The Judiciary Committee’s bill includes $30.725 billion for ICE, $3.47 billion for Customs and Border Protection and $1.457 billion for the Department of Justice.

The bill from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs allocates $19.1 billion for CBP to hire Border Patrol staff and $7.45 billion for ICE to hire Homeland Security Investigations agents.

CPB will receive an additional $3.45 billion to purchase new technology “to combat the entry or exit of illicit narcotics at ports of entry,” to upgrade border surveillance technology and to conduct initial screenings of unaccompanied children. 

Another $2.5 billion would go to the Homeland Security secretary for any additional border security needs. 

All of the funding would last through Sept. 30, 2029.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in a statement the panel plans to vote later this month to advance the bill. 

“Senate Democrats refuse to vote for a single dollar to secure our borders or enforce our immigration laws, even against the most violent illegal aliens,” Paul said. 

60 votes not needed in Senate

Republicans plan to pass the bill using the same complex budget reconciliation process they used last year to enact their “big, beautiful” law that provided DHS with $170 billion. 

GOP lawmakers voted last month to approve the budget resolution that unlocks the process that comes with many rules and restrictions but avoids the need to get 60 votes in the Senate to end debate. 

Senate Republican leaders chose to separate funding for ICE and Border Patrol from the annual Homeland Security appropriations bill after the two political parties made little progress toward restrictions on immigration agents. 

The stalemate led to a 76-day shutdown for the Department of Homeland Security, which ended in late April after the House sent Trump the annual funding bill the Senate had approved a month earlier.

While the idea of a special tax on millionaires is hotly debated across the country, Maine state Rep. Cheryl Golek characterized her state’s new tax as a modest and reasonable step toward fairness.

That’s because, she said, working- and middle-class households in Maine — including teachers, firefighters and nurses — are paying effective state income tax rates similar to or higher than those of the highest earners.

“Those who benefit the most from our economy do so because of the people, infrastructure and communities that support that success,” said Golek, a Democrat. “Asking for a small additional contribution from the wealthiest in our state is a reasonable and widely supported step toward a fairer system.”

The legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Janet Mills this month will add a 2% tax to households whose income exceeds $1 million per year.

Maine and Washington, which enacted its own law last month, are among the latest Democratic-led states to ask for more tax dollars from the rich as national wealth inequality widens and states face heightened budget pressures. They follow the lead of other states including New Jersey and Massachusetts that have implemented specific taxes for the rich.

The idea is gaining traction as lawmakers in at least a dozen states, including Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Virginia, have proposed new taxes for the wealthiest taxpayers. In California, advocates this week announced they gathered enough signatures for a ballot initiative that would impose a one-time tax on billionaires. But these proposals often stir yearslong battles.

The taxes can take different forms — taxing annual incomes above a certain threshold or taxing capital assets, including high-value stocks and real estate. Earlier this month, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Gov. Kathy Hochul, both Democrats, proposed a new pied-à-terre tax for homes valued above $5 million when owners have a separate primary residence outside of New York City.

In neighboring New Jersey, those earning over $1 million per year face an income tax top rate of 10.75% in addition to a so-called mansion tax on the sales of high-value homes.

Proponents say these moves can help balance state tax structures that are tilted against lower earners. The left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy says the tax systems of 40 states favor the wealthiest earners. But opponents argue that these measures levy new taxes on business owners, dissuading local investment and encouraging rich residents to move away — especially risky during a time when many other states are slashing taxes.

“When the outlook of our population growth is stagnant and we should be attracting people to Maine, it puts a disincentive to people to call Maine home,” Patrick Woodcock, president and CEO of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, said during a news conference ahead of the state House vote on the tax.

The rising push to tax the wealthy in liberal states comes as some red states are moving to more regressive tax systems, which put a higher burden on lower earners.

“You increasingly have two poles where you have a larger number of states with fairly low income taxes and a smaller but still significant number of states that have doubled down on high rates, particularly high rates on high earners,” said Jared Walczak, senior fellow at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation.

He said increasing income taxes pushes wealthy people and employers to low-tax states. Even if individuals don’t directly move because of taxes, they follow businesses to other states, he said.

And some progressives are wary of going too far: California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is opposing the ballot initiative that would impose a one-time 5% tax on those whose net worth exceeds $1 billion. Hochul, who pushed for the new tax on second homes in New York City, has warned that more tax increases on the millionaires and billionaires could hollow out a crucial portion of the state’s tax base.

Walczak said only a handful of in-demand places can afford to impose higher taxes for the same reason that people pay higher rents.

“It’s worth it to a lot of people,” he said. “People are willing to pay very high rent, but there’s a limit. In the same way, they’re willing to pay higher taxes to live in New York, but there is a limit.”

Rising wealth inequality

The gap between the rich and poor has been widening for decades.

Wealth for the bottom fifth of American households has barely moved in recent decades, while the top 0.1% have seen their wealth increase by nearly $40 million each, according to an analysis by the anti-poverty nonprofit Oxfam America.

Between 1980 and 2022, the share of national income going to the top 1% doubled, while the share going to the bottom 50% fell by a third, Oxfam reported.

Recent federal policy changes have only exacerbated the need for progressive state tax changes, said Amber Wallin, executive director of the State Revenue Alliance, which is lobbying for higher taxes for the wealthy across multiple states.

President Donald Trump’s major tax and spending bill, often called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, slashed funds for safety net programs including food stamps and Medicaid. At the same time, it provided tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthy.

“So we know millions will lose access to healthcare, millions will lose food assistance, and states all across the country will see funding cuts for key programs,” she said. “We know that people power a strong economy, not tax cuts for the wealthy, and when the rich pay their fair share of taxes, we all benefit.”

Since Massachusetts voters in 2022 approved a 4% surtax on annual incomes above $1 million, that Fair Share Amendment has provided the commonwealth with $6 billion in transportation and education funding.

But Jim Stergios, executive director at the libertarian-leaning Pioneer Institute, said it’s not just the ultra-wealthy who are paying that tax. People who record a one-time sale of a business or a home can face the tax even if they’re not earning over $1 million every year, he said.

He said the tax is pushing residents out of the state and dampening business investment. Federal data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows Massachusetts lost more than 33,000 residents to other states last year, though Democratic Gov. Maura Healy noted the overall population did increase because of foreign immigration. Stergios noted lawmakers are still facing challenges balancing the state budget even with the new revenue.

“So over the long term, it’s not going to have a salutary effect,” he said. “We’re going to continue to have budget problems. We do have budget problems even with this.”

Proponents and opponents of the state’s millionaire’s tax have touted recent IRS data in their arguments: Residents leaving Massachusetts took a total of $4.2 billion in adjusted gross income with them in 2023, the first year of the new tax, Bloomberg reported. Yet the number of residents moving out of Massachusetts who reported income of $200,000 or more fell after the tax was implemented.

“There’s no real evidence of millionaire out-migration. I’m sure there’s some isolated anecdotes, but the actual data don’t show it,” said Phineas Baxandall, director of research and policy analysis at the left-leaning Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center.

He said one piece of evidence that the wealthy remain in Massachusetts are the proceeds of the tax itself, which are funding major priorities including free community college and expanding childcare subsidies for thousands.

“Massachusetts is rightfully fearful of the federal cuts that are happening,” Baxandall said, “but we’ve been able to still move forward with real, transformational investments.”

Multiyear efforts

Though interest in raising taxes on the rich is growing across the country, the idea faces considerable skepticism and often requires years of organizing.

In March, Michigan advocates announced they would suspend their campaign to put on the statewide ballot a 5% tax on individual incomes over $500,000 and joint incomes over $1 million.

“We always knew that we were going to face strong headwinds from billionaires who don’t want to pay their fair share,” Rachelle Crow-Hercher, president of the Invest in MI Kids steering committee, said in a statement to Michigan Advance. That coalition plans to eye the 2028 election cycle instead, she said.

Last week, Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch announced he would drop a push for a new millionaire’s tax as Democrats came up short of the necessary supermajority needed to put the issue on this fall’s ballot.

Welch believes the issue will come before lawmakers again, but after missing a key legislative deadline it won’t be eligible for a statewide vote until 2028. He said it remains popular among voters. Lawmakers proposed using proceeds of a new tax for schools and property tax relief.

“I believe that we should tax the rich and the rich should pay more,” he said. “To those who much is given, much is required.”

I believe that we should tax the rich and the rich should pay more. To those who much is given, much is required.

– Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch

Meanwhile, the newly enacted Washington tax faces a lengthy, though expected, court challenge.

The legislation signed last month by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson imposes a 9.9% tax on household income above $1 million a year. Opponents argue that income is property and thus must be taxed uniformly because of state constitutional requirements.

In addition to the constitutional concerns, Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh said the new law opens the door for lawmakers to eventually expand income taxes to more households — not just the rich. Instead of raising revenue, he said Democratic lawmakers should focus on cutting spending, noting the state operations budget has more than doubled in the past decade.

“The problem is not the financing mechanism of the state’s operations,” he said. “It’s the rate at which far-left advocates in the legislature have been increasing state government spending in the state. It’s ridiculous.”

To Democratic state Sen. Noel Frame, the legislation brings the state’s regressive tax code more in line with Washington’s progressive politics. With no statewide income tax, sales and property taxes leave lower income earners to cover more of the cost of state services, making Washington’s one of the nation’s most regressive tax systems.

“For all the things that we do that are good, big, bold economic policy — to have the tax code that we have is just an embarrassment, and it’s completely out of line with our values as a state,” Frame said.

Like the push for a $15 minimum wage started in liberal cities and states, Frame expects the millionaire tax movement will spread into more conservative areas.

Already, some conservative states, including Idaho, Indiana and Florida, have made moves to reject some of last year’s federal tax changes that benefit corporations and the wealthy.

“The people are demanding better,” Frame said. “And the more that people understand the deep connection of tax policy to income and wealth inequality, the more engaged they become.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

On March 7, 1965, a Sunday night, ABC television was airing the Academy Award-winning film “Judgment at Nuremberg.” In the middle of the film the network did something unusual. The news division at ABC broke into its popular Sunday night movie to broadcast a report that shocked much of the nation and helped create the political environment needed to make a massive advance in American voting rights.

Six hundred peaceful marchers, most of them Black Americans, were marching that Sunday from Selma to Montgomery demanding voting rights. As the marchers began to cross the Edmund Pettis Bridge spanning the Alabama River on the outskirts of Selma they were attacked by 160 Alabama state troopers and sheriff’s deputies, some on horseback others wielding night sticks or whips while wearing gas masks. Many of the marchers were knocked to the ground or forced to sprint away or face real harm. Some, like young John Lewis, then the chairman of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and later a congressman from Georgia, were not able to get away and were savagely beaten. His injuries required Lewis to be hospitalized. 

As I wrote in my study of Senate leadership in the 1960’s, “Nothing, not the March on Washington in the summer of 1963, not the ambush murder of Medgar Evers, not the Birmingham police commissioner turning fire hoses on protesters, not even a church bombing that killed four young African American girls galvanized the country like ‘Bloody Sunday’ in Selma.” 

Millions of American saw the shocking images on television in their living rooms and it brought alive the human stakes – and risks – in the struggle for voting rights.  

Bloody Sunday in Selma was front page news almost everywhere. The Billings Gazette played the story on page one, below the fold, and with a stark headline: “Clubs, Whips, Gas Rout ‘March for Freedom.’” 

The Montana Standard in Butte led with the story and spread a graphic photo on its page one, a picture of a helmeted Alabama state trooper ordering “a prostrate woman to her feet” after troopers broke up the march. The photo caption noted that the woman appeared to be unconscious and was eventually carried away by two fellow marchers. 

It’s doubtful Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, the Montana Democrat, saw that ABC News report from Selma. Mansfield’s idea of a pleasant Sunday night was to enjoy a quiet dinner with his wife, Maureen, and read a book. His tastes ran to murder mysteries and historical fiction. But the violent events in Selma outraged the former Butte copper miner and University of Montana professor. 

By Wednesday – three days after Bloody Sunday – as Mansfield told reporters in Washington, DC, he was working on his own voting rights legislation, apparently in part because he was concerned that President Lyndon Johnson might not act quickly enough in the wake of the outrages in Selma, directed toward Americans simply demanding the right to vote. 

With Bloody Sunday in Selma as a powerful and disturbing catalyst, over the next several weeks Mansfield, as he had a year earlier, worked in total cooperation and with absolute candor with Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois, to pass the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965. It wasn’t easy. 

Southern segregationists and white supremacists in Mansfield’s own party vigorously opposed the legislation that would encourage voter registration and end literacy tests. Some Republicans argued that the legislation amounted to federal overreach and violated a state’s ability to manage its own elections. But those criticisms were the barely disguised desire of white southerners to continue historic “state’s rights” efforts to make minority voting difficult or even impossible. Additionally Mansfield and Dirksen, as they had with the Civil Rights Act in 1964, needed to overcome a 24-day Senate filibuster, and they did.

Years later Mansfield said he considered the Voting Rights Act the most significant legislation passed during his 24-year Senate career. 

Section 2 of the Act prohibited discriminatory practices, including state level redistricting efforts that historically tended to dilute minority voting and deprived Black and Latino voters from electing Black and Latino candidates. Another section of the law instituted a “pre-clearance” test that allowed the Justice Department to evaluate changes in voting or registration practices in areas with a historic record of preventing or suppressing minority voting. 

Last week the six decade legacy of Mike Mansfield, Everett Dirksen, Lyndon Johnson, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lewis, the Freedom Riders and the many martyrs who fought and even died for voting rights was demolished by an ultra-conservative Supreme Court. The court, blinkered by a generation-long disgust for federal legislation addressing the right to vote, has blithely forgotten the long, twilight struggle to bring American minority voters into the mainstream of American politics. 

The conservative, Republican appointed majority on the court was careful, apparently for the sake of appearances, to not seem to directly overturn the Voting Rights Act, but there is little doubt that by continuing, over more than decade, a long series of decisions that have gutted the law, the nation’s politics has been radically altered. The hugely partisan and historically ignorant decision last week was the latest and finally fatal blow that will almost certainly eliminate many Black majority districts and further stoke a hyper partisan death struggle over gerrymandering.

Some commentators have declared the Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais the worst high court decision since the Dred Scott ruling prior to the Civil War, and on par with the much lamented late 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision declaring that racial segregation – separate but equal – for Blacks and Whites in America was permissible. 

“The VRA has not been dealt a ‘blow,’” wrote Atlantic editor Vann R. Newkirk II, “the decision did not merely defang it. The law is dead, and no matter what happens in the coming elections, politics in America has been forever changed. For most of the nation’s history, the former Confederate states have worked hard to minimize the political influence of Black residents in particular. Now they have full cover to do so again.” 

The ink was barely dry on the 6-3 decision before Republicans in Louisiana, Alabama and Tennessee signaled immediate efforts to redraw congressional boundaries, in most cases to eliminate “majority-minority” districts represented by Blacks. 

In Mississippi conservatives are celebrating the decision as a way to redistrict the state’s only Black congressman, Bennie Thompson, out of the seat he has held for years. Thompson represents a district centered on the state capital, Jackson, that is predominately Black, but the state legislature can now freely dilute that minority strength. Mississippi’s Black population is 38% of the state – the largest percentage in the country – but the decision could well mean that minority voters in Mississippi will no longer be able to elect a Black candidate. 

As The New York Times reported: “Critics of the decision expect that any reconfiguration will not only endanger Black incumbents, some of whom have held office for decades, but also threaten a rising generation of Black Democrats in the South, who already have few avenues for ascending in politics.”

Some expect the Court’s effective nullification of the 1965 law will trickle down to local offices at the city, county and state legislative level, crimping off what has been a steadily expanding pipeline of minority political talent. 

“This case has the potential to essentially stop Black political representation from advancing in the way that we know it,” Emmitt Y. Riley III, a political science professor at Sewanee, the University of the South, told the Times.

Law professor Joshua A. Douglas wrote in The Washington Monthly that the Court majority in the recent Louisiana case “pretends that race no longer matters in American politics and offers extreme deference to state legislatures, whom we should trust less, not more, to craft fair rules for all voters. The combination makes it virtually impossible for litigants to turn to the federal courts when states enact laws that exclude some people from the democratic process.”

Montana’s Mansfield, who did as much as anyone to bring about the Voting Rights Act, was never one to claim credit for the remarkable and often enduring legislation he helped pass. In fact, he often downplayed the impact of civil and voting rights legislation on his Montana constituents – the state’s Black citizens in the 1960s were never more than 1% of the population – even as many Montanans wrote him making the same arguments against voting rights legislation as those made by southern segregationists. 

But Mansfield believed unequivocally in equality, and he held two steadfast beliefs: Faith in the Constitution, as well as the importance of the Senate under the Constitution in confronting the biggest issues facing the nation, and a conviction that the only sure way to bring about lasting positive change in American society was through the tireless work of bipartisan agreement that, while not always perfect, moved the nation steadily toward a more perfect Union. 

For most of the 61 years since Mansfield helped engineer passage of the Voting Rights Act – the legislation passed the Senate 77-19 with a higher percentage of Republicans voting yes than Democrats – it was the fixed consensus of courts, politicians and most voters that the VRA was the single most important political step since the Civil War to ensure equality for all citizens in a multi-racial society. 

The Supreme Court has now finished the destruction of that once settled reality. 

As Lyndon Johnson, a Texan who began his political career as a segregationist and is remembered today as a great champion of civil and voting rights, said in signing the Voting Rights Act: “It is difficult to fight for freedom. But I also know how difficult it can be to bend long years of habit and custom to grant it. There is no room for injustice anywhere in the American mansion. But there is always room for understanding toward those who see the old ways crumbling. And to them today I say simply this: It must come. It is right that it should come. And when it has, you will find that a burden has been lifted from your shoulders, too.” 

Unfortunately, the Mansfield dream of equality and political opportunity for all Americans has now been erased from this good and quiet man’s enormous legacy as the longest serving majority leader in Senate history. 

While it is dangerous to offer judgments about what historical figures would make of our contemporary world it can, I believe, safely be said that Mike Mansfield would be appalled that the United States Supreme Court has ignored both troubled history and continuing political reality that has time and again diminished or even sought to erase the rights of minorities. 

It will take a new birth of freedom and a new commitment to voting rights for all Americans to undo this historically noxious decision, and a new Mike Mansfield – should we be fortunate to have such a person – will have to lead the way – again. 

(Marc C. Johnson, a political historian, is a fellow at the Mansfield Center at the University of Montana. His most recent book from the University of Oklahoma Press is Mansfield and Dirksen: Bipartisan Giants of the Senate.) 

The Montana Legislature’s Committee on Committees at its May 4 meeting unanimously voted to remove Democratic Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy from two interim committees at the request of Senate President Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, and Minority Leader Pat Flowers, D-Bozeman.

Windy Boy, one of the longest-serving members of the legislature, has been called on to resign his seat from the Legislature after the Montana Democratic Party chairperson Shannon O’Brien announced last month the party had learned of allegations of sexual abuse. Windy Boy suspended his candidacy for a U.S. congressional seat the day the allegations were publicly reported citing health reasons. He has not publicly responded to the allegations of sexual abuse.

Windy Boy did not respond to phone calls or text messages on Monday.

His interim appointments included the Senate Finance and Claims and Section E Interim Budget Committee and the State-Tribal Relations Interim Committee.

In the short meeting, Sen. John Esp brought the motion to change the committee assignments.

Helena Democratic Sen. Laura Smith will take his place on the finance and budget committees, while Sen. Jacinda Morigeau, D-Arlee will fill his seat on State-Tribal Relations. The Committee on Committee is only responsible for assigning lawmakers to their standing and interim posts.

“I think whoever comes back will be dealing with this issue probably when you get back, but this at least clears the deck for the rest of the interim so that we don’t have this hanging over the interim work,” said Esp, a Republican from Big Timber who is termed out of office at the end of this year.

Regier, with the support of Flowers, also rescinded Windy Boy’s appointment to the School Funding Interim Commission and appointed Sen. Dave Fern, D-Whitefish, to the seat.

“We’re taking the steps within our authority to hold Senator Windy Boy accountable for his actions and protect the integrity of the Montana Senate, including stripping him of all appointed responsibilities for the remainder of the current legislative cycle,” Regier and Flowers said in a joint statement. “Sen. Windy Boy still needs to do the right thing and completely resign from public office.”

The allegations against Windy Boy were first made public by the Montana Democratic Party on April 16, when party officials said they had learned of “serious sexual abuse” allegations against the lawmaker.

According to reporting by the Montana Free Press, the allegations include Windy Boy sending sexually explicit photos and messages to underage girls in 2002.

Helena attorney Brian Miller, who is running for the Democratic nomination for the eastern congressional seat, as was Windy Boy, has confirmed to the Daily Montanan he is representing the alleged victim and her mother, Brenda Russell, who began posting to social media in February and March allegations that Windy Boy had propositioned her underage daughter and sent explicit photos more than two decades ago.

Windy Boy had faced separate sexual harassment allegations in 2018 while serving in the Legislature that led to an investigative report by Legislative Services and were covered by The Associated Press. The report detailed inappropriate text messages Windy Boy sent to a female colleague in the Legislature and concluded that “the situation is likely to repeat itself and it should not go unchecked.”

Windy Boy resigned from his committee assignments at the time.

In their joint statement, Regier and Flowers reiterated their calls for Windy Boy to resign from the Senate because of his pattern of repeated sexual harassment, “with known instances and credible allegations dating back over two decades, including sexually explicit and harassing communication to minors and to legislative staff.”

Between legislative sessions, a lawmaker can be removed from office through a voter-initiated recall election, but cannot be removed by the Legislature.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has quantified some of the impacts of poaching in the state from 2025 with an uptick in reported poaching cases and fines leveraged against defendants compared to 2024.

In a report by TIPMONT, the state’s program that encourages the public to report poaching crimes by offering reward payouts to informants who help lead to convictions, the state authorized $28,100 in reward money to members of the public in 2025.

The TIPMONT board at its April meeting also approved $48,553 in fines levied against defendants in poaching cases presented to the board; 66 total years of lost hunting, fishing and trapping privileges for the defendants; 153 total charges and $71,010 in restitution paid by defendants.

Poaching crimes include illegal shed hunting, vandalism, littering, cultural resource theft and other resource crimes. TIPMONT offers potential cash rewards of up to $1,000 for individuals who report poaching crimes.

“By reporting poaching, individuals contribute to the conservation of endangered species and the overall health of natural habitats,” FWP Operation Sgt. and TIPMONT coordinator Brooke Shelley said in a statement.

The 2025 numbers are higher than the previous year, which saw 83 charges and $37,250 in restitution, but the agency notes that the increase is partly due to the timing of the TIPMONT board meeting — which occurred after the 2025 hunting season this time, as opposed to in mid-summer in 2024.

However, Shelley said that breaking down the number by year still shows “more and bigger cases” submitted for the 2025 season.

To report information about possible poaching incidents, visit tipmont.mt.gov

Across the state’s seven hunting regions, game wardens reported similar hunting seasons compared to previous years, but a few noted an uptick in violations.

In western Montana, Warden Capt. Kyle Miller said he saw more hunters who hadn’t thoroughly read hunting regulations and “because of that mistakes were made,” including some hunters being in areas without the required permits.

“We also saw hunters not reading the ‘Opportunity Specific Details and/or Restrictions’ box in the regulations, which restricts who may harvest an animal or where that animal may be harvested,” Miller added, resulting in some animals being harvested on public land when opportunities were restricted to only private property. “It was mostly resident hunters.”

Increases in mistakes were also noted in southwest Montana, where game wardens said hunters called in their own mistakes including accidentally exceeding limits or recognizing they’d shot an animal in the wrong district.

“The TIPMONT reports were also top-notch in my opinion,” Game Warden Capt. Josh Leonard said. “I can honestly say some of the eyewitness details we received on some cases were exceptional – exceptional enough that all we had to do was arrive and the case was made.”

Over in the eastern portion of the state, a game warden captain said a busier hunting season overall led to increased violations.

“Word began to spread about specific areas of the Region where hunters were seeing better deer numbers,” Justin Feddes said. “Subsequent groups of hunters then focused on these areas, especially later in the season, resulting in an uptick in violations and reports.”

Feddes added that citations and warnings were up significantly from the 2023 and 2024 seasons, with many related to recent changes made by the state legislature and Fish and Wildlife Commission.

“Game wardens primarily focus on educating hunters when these changes occur, but it is the ultimate responsibility of the hunter to know the rules and regulations before they head into the field, he said.

The State Auditor’s office is clamping down on what it called “a troubling and deceptive business practice” regarding “misleading” health insurance plans from companies that offer poor coverage and bad customer service.

In a press release, State Auditor James Brown said his office has received numerous complaints against a company, Strategic Limited Partners, that is not licensed to issue insurance policies in the state. The office has issued a cease-and-desist letter to the company. In a release, the Auditor’s Office said the company has ceased issuing policies in the state.

“The complaints came from Montanans who thought they had purchased quality health insurance through SLP, but when they submitted claims for medical expenses, found that SLP would not cover them,” Brown said in a release.

More than 130 complaints had been filed against SLP with the Better Business Bureau in the last three years.

The most recent complaint came from a Montana resident who received a $90,000 hospital bill the company refused to cover. Another involved a Montana church looking to offer a new pastor health insurance.

The plan the church offered the pastor “was presented to them as an (Affordable Care Act) compliant policy” but, in fact, was not. Only after the pastor incurred medical bills did the church find out that the policy only offered discounts on a limited number of services.

“Needless to say, this experience has been a source of stress for the consumer’s family, the congregation, and the authorized representative who purchased the policy offered by the church,” Brown said in a press release. “They discovered through their own diligent research that other legal action has been taken against SLP. In turn, they rightly filed a complaint with my office.”

There may be other companies engaging in similar practices, the release said. In an effort to avoid consumer-protection regulations, some companies offer plans that refer to consumers as limited partners or employees. 

“None of the consumers who have contacted Commissioner Brown have been aware that they were designated by SLP as employees or partners of the sponsoring company, RFA Group, Inc., a dissolved Texas corporation,” the release stated.

If Montanans have questions regarding their insurance provider, they can contact the Insurance Consumer Service Bureau at the Office of Securities and Insurance. They can be reached at 800-332-6148 or 406-444-2040.

“If a deal looks too good to be true, it probably is,” Brown said in a release. “If a health insurance policy offers unusually low premiums and low deductibles yet promises full or unlimited coverage, be skeptical. If a health insurance plan’s fine print designates participants as ‘employees’ or ‘partners,’ find out more.”

Brown has targeted wrongdoing by insurance companies during his time in office, recently winning a court battle over the right to investigate Blue Cross Blue Shield, and announcing it had gotten back over $37 million in wrongful billing schemes preying on Native American communities.

WASHINGTON — Americans saw prices at the pump sharply rise in recent days as the nationwide average cost for a gallon of regular gas shot up 38 cents over the past week, according to GasBuddy.

The motor club AAA clocked the average price of regular gas at $4.46 per gallon and diesel at $5.64, as Iran and the U.S. remain at a stalemate over opening the Strait of Hormuz, where one-fifth of the world’s petroleum passed through prior to the war.

“Gasoline prices rose in every state over the last week, with some of the most significant and fastest increases concentrated in the Great Lakes, where states like Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois saw sharp spikes, while Wisconsin experienced more modest gains,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in a statement Monday. 

“At the same time, diesel prices surged to new records in parts of the region, with some areas touching the $6-per-gallon mark,” he added.

De Haan said refinery outages drove prices up, but other factors like Middle East oil output and President Donald Trump’s plan to free oil tankers stuck in the Persian Gulf could help.

“However, with so many moving pieces, the outlook remains highly fluid, and while some localized relief may emerge, broader price volatility is likely to persist in the near term,” he said.

Trump’s approval ratings, particularly on everyday costs, are sinking. About two-thirds of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the cost of living, and 66% disapprove of the president’s handling of the Iran war, according to a Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll published Sunday. 

Trump’s overall disapproval of 62% was the highest the survey recorded since he first took office in 2017.

The nationwide average for a gallon of regular gas was $4.10 one month ago. Last year at this time, it was $3.16, according to AAA.

Brent crude oil, the international standard, jumped to $114.90 a barrel Monday, the second-highest price jump since Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022.

During a small business summit at the White House on Monday, Trump said the war “is working out very nicely.”

“They thought that energy would be at $300 right, $300 a barrel. And it’s like at 100 and I think going down,” Trump said, incorrectly describing the current trend in prices. “And I see it going down very substantially when this is over.”

Navy escorts through strait

Trump on Sunday announced “Project Freedom,” an operation to guide cargo ships and oil tankers through the strait with the guidance of the U.S. Navy.

The “humanitarian gesture,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, is “merely meant to free up people, companies, and Countries that have done absolutely nothing wrong — They are victims of circumstance.”

Some 20,000 merchant ship crew members have been stranded in the Persian Gulf during the ongoing war, according to United Nations estimates at the end of March.

Trump threatened that Iran would “be dealt with forcefully” if they interfered with the operation.

As of Monday, U.S. Central Command said two U.S.-flagged merchant ships had been escorted through the strait. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps disputed the claim as “baseless and completely false,” according to a statement reported by Iranian state media.

“Any other maritime movements that contradict the stated principles of the IRGC Navy will face serious risks, and any violating vessels will be forcefully stopped,” the statement read.

War continues

The IRGC also claimed to have hit two U.S. military vessels in the strait Monday, a claim categorically denied by U.S. Central Command.

U.S. Central Command’s Admiral Brad Cooper told reporters on a press call Monday that the IRGC launched multiple cruise missiles and drones at merchant ships that “we are protecting.” 

“We have defeated each and every one of those threats through the clinical application of defensive munitions,” he told reporters. 

U.S. Apache and Seahawk helicopters sank six small Iranian boats Monday, according to Cooper.

The United Arab Emirates defense ministry reported Monday it was intercepting Iranian missiles and drones over various parts of the country. Iran’s air strikes on its U.S. ally neighbors have largely quieted in recent weeks.

U.K. Maritime Trade Organization, which reports on security conditions, has kept the strait’s regional threat level as “critical.”

Trump said Saturday he was reviewing a new deal from Iran to end the war. Talks have failed since the U.S. and Iran announced a tenuous ceasefire on April 7.

WASHINGTON — The State Department must spend the $600 million Congress approved for an international vaccine program, according to a letter sent Monday by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators.

The six senior members of the Appropriations Committee, three Republicans and three Democrats, called on Secretary of State Marco Rubio to fulfill the government’s “pledge” to GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.

“GAVI plays a critical role in averting the spread of preventable diseases around the globe and helps protect public health in our country by stopping outbreaks before they reach our borders,” the senators wrote. “Congressional support for GAVI endures because of its proven success as a public-private partnership, immunizing more than 1.1 billion children – and in turn preventing 20.6 million deaths – since its inception in 2000.”

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine; ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash.; State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., all signed the letter.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, didn’t sign the letter. 

A State Department spokesperson wrote in an email the department doesn’t “comment on congressional correspondence.” 

Senators wrote in the letter that GAVI “supports U.S. industry and jobs, purchasing more than $12.5 billion in U.S.-manufactured goods and vaccines.”

“It is the world’s leading purchaser of U.S.-produced vaccines and hosts the U.S.-founded global vaccine stockpile,” the senators wrote. “Additionally, vaccines funded through GAVI are approved through the same standards as used by the Food and Drug Administration.”

After the U.S. Supreme Court severely weakened the federal Voting Rights Act in an April 29 decision, a furious U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries condemned what he called an “illegitimate” conservative majority on the court.

“This isn’t even the Roberts Court,” Jeffries said, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts. “It’s the Trump Court.”

Democrats are renewing their calls to overhaul the Supreme Court in the wake of the court’s decision, which empowers states to gerrymander congressional maps in ways that will break apart districts where a majority of residents are Black, Hispanic or belong to other minority groups. 

The momentous opinion overturned the reasoning behind decades of court cases that relied on the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a law born of efforts to stamp out Jim Crow voting laws in the South, to protect these majority-minority districts.

For years, critics of the court, where conservatives enjoy a 6-3 majority, have pushed for changes. Those efforts often center on expanding the size of the court to dilute the influence of the majority or imposing term limits on the justices, though other ideas, like narrowing the kinds of cases the court can consider, have also been discussed.

But the April 29 decision seems to be the last straw for some Democrats and progressives, though they are unlikely to be able to force any of the changes on their wishlist — at least for a long time. 

After rulings in recent years that ended the federal right to an abortion and handed President Donald Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution while in office, they are fed up with a court they view as unmoored from the law and ruling based on politics.

“We cannot protect voting rights, civil rights or the environment as long as we have a Supreme Court majority that is captured by MAGA authoritarians,” Doug Lindner, senior director of judiciary and democracy at the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy group, told reporters on Thursday. “We need to take back our Supreme Court.”

Any effort to impose significant changes at the court will encounter stiff Republican opposition. GOP lawmakers have praised the court’s latest decision and some see long-serving Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito as conservative icons. Unless Democrats win 60 seats in the Senate or eliminate the filibuster, Congress is highly unlikely to pass a major overhaul.

Republicans have denounced past proposals to change the court. After President Joe Biden proposed 18-year terms for justices and other changes in July 2024, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said the plan “would tilt the balance of power and erode not only the rule of law, but the American people’s faith in our system of justice.”

No action under Biden

Supreme Court reform has long percolated as an issue among Democrats and progressives, but picked up steam during the 2020 presidential primary campaign. 

The court’s ideological makeup had already moved toward conservatives after Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote on key decisions, retired in 2018 and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative. Republicans then cemented a firm 6-3 majority on the court in the fall of 2020 after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal, died and was replaced by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Campaigning for president, then-candidate Biden voiced support for a presidential commission that would study court reform. After winning election, Biden named a blue ribbon panel of law professors, former judges and other lawyers, which issued a final report in December 2021.

The commission’s report stopped short of endorsing structural changes. It took no position on expanding the size of the court from nine members, citing “profound disagreement” among commission members over the idea. The commission also adopted no stance on term limits for justices.

The report was essentially put on a shelf — Biden made no serious effort to advance a court overhaul, though he later proposed some reforms after ending his campaign for reelection.

Public opinion dropping

Americans’ view of the Supreme Court has been falling. An August 2025 Pew Research Center survey found 48% of Americans hold a favorable view of the court, a 22-percentage point drop from August 2020.

A survey released in September 2025 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found 69% support for term limits but only 31% support for expanding the size of the court.

Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University and the executive director of the Emmet J. Bondurant Center for Constitutional Law, Practice and Democracy, said past courts would have been responsive to the prospect of legislation, but the current court isn’t swayed by public opinion.

In some cases the court tries to preserve its legitimacy by giving the other side a win, Segall said, but in general the court’s decisions since 2018, when Kennedy retired, can be explained by viewing the court as a subset of the Republican Party.

“This court is defined by the Republican Party,” he said.

Segall has called for dividing the court evenly between conservative and liberal appointees. An evenly-split court would encourage greater compromise among the justices, he contends. He also supports expanding the court and term limits if possible. But he bluntly predicted court reform wouldn’t happen in his lifetime.

“If Democrats have the power to do it, they won’t do it,” Segall said.

Action unlikely, at least in short term

Jeffries, who will likely become U.S. House speaker if Democrats retake the chamber in the November midterm elections, said this week that “everything was on the table” in terms of the Supreme Court.

“In the new Congress, we’re going to have to do something about this Supreme Court,” Jeffries told the MeidasTouch Network.

Rep. John Rose, a Tennessee Republican, said on social media that Jeffries’ comments show that Democrats are preparing to “nuke the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court the second they’re back in power.”

Trump and some Republicans in Congress, convinced Democrats will end the filibuster to pass priorities like Supreme Court reform, want Republicans to end the filibuster first and enact a host of conservative priorities before the party potentially loses control of the Senate following the November elections.

But even if Democrats end the filibuster, the party faces a steep climb to changing the court unless it retakes control of Congress and the White House. That means any major overhaul almost certainly wouldn’t become law until at least 2029.

Trump’s response

Trump has had a turbulent relationship with the court but would be virtually certain to veto legislation remaking it while he remains in office.

While the justices have protected Trump and future presidents from criminal prosecution for actions taken as part of their presidential duties, they struck down his sweeping worldwide tariffs as illegal, dealing a major blow to one of his signature policies. They also refused to hear legal challenges that sought to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss.

Still, Trump scoffed on Thursday at Democratic hopes to remake the court in the future. He accused the party of wanting 21 justices on the court (Democratic-sponsored plans in recent years have called for 13 or 15 justices). He also called Jeffries’ comments a “dangerous statement.”

“Hakeem Jeffries said the Supreme Court is illegitimate,” Trump said Thursday. “That’s a rough statement.”

Federal agencies say they have yet to take steps to implement President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting voting by mail, as the Department of Justice fights a Democrat-led lawsuit against it.

The Justice Department late Friday filed documents asking a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit and to not block the executive order on a preliminary basis because the order hasn’t been implemented. The filings marked the Trump administration’s first effort to defend the order in court.

The March 31 order directs the creation of state citizenship lists and restricts how ballots can be sent through the mail, instructions that Democrats and election experts have called unconstitutional and illegal. It comes as Trump has seized on the specter of noncitizen voting, an extremely rare phenomenon, to demand sweeping voting restrictions.

In its Friday filing, the Justice Department sought to persuade Judge Carl J. Nichols in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia that a legal challenge is premature.

“If and when the Executive Branch takes some action to implement the Executive Order” then a lawsuit can be brought, Stephen Pezzi, a senior trial counsel in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, wrote in a court filing.

Nichols has scheduled a hearing for May 14.

No action taken, officials tell court

The DOJ’s argument relies on statements by key federal officials that the agencies affected by the order — the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Postal Service — are still deliberating over how to carry out Trump’s directive. In declarations filed in court on Friday, officials at all three agencies say final decisions haven’t been made.

“As the Postal Service is still in the deliberation phase of determining how to implement the Executive Order, we have not yet published a proposed rule, nor have we reached any final decisions about the substance of a proposed rule,” Steven Monteith, the Postal Service’s chief customer and marketing officer, wrote.

The executive order directs the postmaster general, who leads the Postal Service, to propose a rule that would block states from sending ballots through the mail except to voters on lists provided by the state to the Postal Service. 

The order also instructs Homeland Security to compile lists of voting-age U.S. citizens in each state with the help of the Social Security Administration. Democrats allege the Trump administration is building an unauthorized national voter list, despite the U.S. Constitution giving states the responsibility of running federal elections.

Michael Mayhew, deputy associate director of the Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, wrote in a declaration that the agency “has not yet begun preparation” of state citizenship lists. USCIS is a subsidiary of Homeland Security.

At the Social Security Administration, Jessica Burns MacBride, head of program policy and data exchange, wrote that the agency hasn’t made any final decisions “about its role” in implementing the executive order.

Focus on Postal Service

The order’s opponents are especially watching the Postal Service’s response, since it is an independent corporation overseen by its Board of Governors — not the White House.

Democrats and experts on postal law say Trump has no authority to order the postmaster general to take any action. The Board of Governors hires and fires the postmaster general, and board members serve seven-year terms, helping insulate them from political pressure.

Last month, 37 Democratic U.S. senators signed a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner and the Board of Governors urging the Postal Service to not implement the executive order. The senators pointed out the president has no authority to regulate federal elections or the Postal Service.

“Like the President, the Postal Service has no authority to regulate the manner of voting in federal elections, nor who is eligible to vote by mail in such elections,” the letter says.

The Postal Service is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed by Democratic groups and leaders in Congress. 

The Justice Department, which is representing the Postal Service, sidestepped questions about the president’s authority in Friday’s court filing. It called arguments about Trump’s authority over the Postal Service an “abstract legal question” that can’t be resolved before the agency takes action.

Still, Monteith appeared to nod to concerns within the Postal Service over the order’s legality while avoiding specifics.

“I am aware that deliberations are currently ongoing within the Postal Service regarding the implementation of the Executive Order,” Monteith wrote, adding that the deliberations include “legal considerations” regarding the order.

Unitary executive theory

The executive order faces at least five lawsuits, including a challenge brought by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general led by California’s Rob Bonta. The Justice Department has not yet filed court documents defending the order in that case.

For their part, Republican attorneys general — led by Catherine Hanaway of Missouri — are defending the executive order. Their position, if adopted by courts, would give Trump sweeping control over the Postal Service.

In a May 1 court filing, the GOP attorneys general argue those challenging the executive order are unlikely to succeed in showing that Trump cannot direct the Postal Service to propose a rule. They say that federal law doesn’t specifically prohibit the president from ordering the postmaster general to put forward rules on mail ballots — and it’s unconstitutional if it does.

“The Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President,” The Republican coalition says, articulating a view commonly called the unitary executive theory: the idea that Congress cannot constitutionally create agencies that exist outside of White House control.

The Republican states involved also include Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.

Democrats and many constitutional law experts reject the unitary executive theory, though it has gained support among Trump-aligned Republicans as the White House seeks greater control over independent agencies.

If the U.S. Supreme Court eventually greenlights Trump’s efforts to control the Postal Service and other independent agencies, it would mark a “tremendous” change in how the federal government operates, James Campbell Jr., an attorney in the Washington, D.C., area who consults on postal law, said in an interview last month.

“What you’re basically talking about is redesigning the U.S. government,” Campbell said.

A Trump administration proposal would end gender identity protections for people in federally funded housing and shelters.  

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed rule would remove references to “gender” and “gender identity” from agency regulations and replace them with “sex,” defined as a person’s biological classification as male or female. That would repeal an Obama-era rule that ensured housing programs are open without regard to gender identity.

The new rule also would allow owners or operators of shelters and other facilities that permit single-sex or sex-specific facilities “to require reasonable assurances and evidence to confirm the sex of an individual seeking service.”

“Through these revisions, the rule would ensure equal access to qualifying facilities would be provided in accordance with the sex of an individual based on his or her immutable biological classification as either male or female rather than the ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity,” the proposed rule said.

The department will take public comments on the proposal through the end of June.

The National Housing Law Project advocacy group criticized the measure, saying it would force federally funded shelters to deny access to unhoused transgender people and allow federally funded housing providers to discriminate against applicants and tenants based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

“Not only will the proposed policies directly harm families and communities, they will increase costs for state and local governments, hospital systems, and social services agencies by forcing more housing insecure people to live on the street rather than in shelter,” Chief Program Officer Deborah Thrope said in a statement.

The proposed rule would affect a population already experiencing disproportionate levels and risks of homelessness. Nearly one-third of transgender respondents in a 2022 survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality said they had experienced homelessness, while a UCLA School of Law Williams Institute analysis found transgender adults were several times more likely than cisgender straight adults to have been homeless in the past year.

The measure could spark a legal battle between the administration and states that adopted gender identity protections into housing and shelter laws.

California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York protect gender identity in housing, public accommodations or both. On the other hand, Iowa and Idaho enacted laws that define sex biologically or restrict access to sex-specific spaces, regardless of gender identity. 

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell has petitioned the Montana Supreme Court to look at the Montana Attorney General exercising supervisory control over the county’s legal apparatus, as well as legal issues regarding information sharing with federal authorities.

On April 30, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen used his ability to exercise supervisory control over the Gallatin County Attorney General’s Office after a flurry of letters between him and Cromwell during the past year. Knudsen gave an ultimatum to Cromwell to issue a memo to county staff after he alleged they “created a policy restricting the sharing of information with ICE in the form of legal advice purporting to distinguish between ICE’s civil and criminal enforcement activities.”

Supervisory control by the state attorney general’s office includes sharing confidential criminal justice information with ICE, “for all lawful purposes, including civil administration immigration matters,” and directs her to produce documents.

“The cognitive dissonance in your reply is astounding,” Knudsen said in an April 30 press release announcing supervisory control. “You have now sworn under oath that there is no policy regarding sharing CCJI with ICE. Yet you also maintain that, under your novel interpretation of Montana law, Gallatin County will not share CCJI with ICE for civil immigration enforcement purposes without a court order. Both things cannot be true.”

An email sent by Cromwell’s office to local law enforcement last year states Gallatin County Attorney’s Office “does not legally recognize Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a law enforcement agency entitled to receive Confidential Criminal Justice Information (CCJI).”

Cromwell, via affidavit, has said no such policy exists in Gallatin County. The matter in question regards a request for information from federal immigration authorities — Cromwell has said the agency, U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was acting in a civil capacity in that particular matter, not a law enforcement agency, and had to go through a specific process to obtain the information they were after.

This puts Cromwell in a difficult position, the petition to the state Supreme Court says. Cromwell is being represented by Raph Graybill and Rachel Parker of Graybill Law Firm.

“Without declaratory relief, Cromwell faces an impossible situation: compelled to provide legal advice she assesses to be incorrect,” the petition reads. “She and her clients face the immediate prospect of severe civil and criminal penalties if they follow incorrect advice and improperly release CCJI in response to a civil request without a court order.”

The petition adds Knudsen’s, “political theatrics have blown a simple, case-specific email exchange between a legal assistant and a county administrative office into a statewide crisis.”

Cromwell has asked Knudsen to write an advisory opinion on the legal issue, which he has not done. Advisory opinions, written by the Attorney General’s Office, have the force of case law until a district court or supreme court decides a legal question.

“Once this Court declares the governing law, no supervisory control is necessary: if the Attorney General is correct, Cromwell will be bound by this Court’s legally operative interpretation,” the petition reads. “If Cromwell is correct, the Attorney General’s directives pursuant to his assumption of supervisory control are unlawful.”

Cromwell Petition FILED

Before Zayne Hert ever put on a Colstrip High School basketball uniform – before he was even born – Montana Supreme Court Justice James Nelson predicted his future, when the justice wrote about student athletes who may try for an extension of eligibility, only to have the season or school year end before a court could intervene.

Hert had struggled with remote learning and online classrooms during COVID, and his grades dropped, leading to academic ineligibility to play on the team during his sophomore year. As he approached his senior high school season, his parents asked if he would be permitted to participate as a fifth-year senior, noting that one of his school years was interrupted by the pandemic and academic ineligibility.

School leaders said he’d probably be able to play. But when the Montana High School Association took up the case, the board unanimously rejected the waiver, citing its own eligibility rules. But, the quasi-public organization which oversees all Montana extra curricular activities, said it’s a private organization and owed them no response, despite Hert’s parents asking repeatedly for a written explanation of the decision.

Rosebud County District Court Judge Rennie L. Wittman agreed, saying the organization had made a decision, and by the time the court proceedings got under way, Hert had graduated during his final, fifth year, but by completing school, it rendered the case moot, according to Wittman. The judge reasoned that the law, even if it agreed with Hert, couldn’t turn back time and let him play his final season.

However, the Montana Supreme Court, getting Hert’s case on appeal, noted several other similar cases have been raised with the same ending: Students graduated or completed their eligibility before the judicial process could come to a conclusion, leading to a string of legal challenges which wound up being moot, which happens when a court can no longer remedy a situation. 

That was exactly what former Montana Supreme Court Justice James Nelson warned about in 2002, when he argued in dissenting (minority) opinions that similar cases were likely to continue until the Montana Supreme Court decided to intervene.

In 2002, Nelson wrote:

.indent2Container { margin-left: 1em; border-left: solid 1px var(--brand_one); padding-left: 2em; } “The constitutional issues raised in this case are important and capable of repetition, yet will likely always escape review…Unfortunately, by mechanically applying the mootness doctrine in these types of cases, the legal issues presented never get resolved despite the fact that the same issues can be raised in the future in the same manner by a different litigant. The result is that the losing party’s remedy of appeal is continually nullified.”

 

Now, 24 years after he wrote those words, the Montana Supreme Court took Hert’s case, reversed the district court, and set out new standards in which high-school participants can meaningful challenge the MHSA before they graduate and their cases become moot.

Montana Supreme Court Justice Ingrid Gustafson, writing for the unanimous court, outlined several new, key rulings that should guide the future, including that the MHSA is legally intertwined enough with public schools to be treated as a public agency, and that once the association, comprised mostly of public school employees, coaches and representatives, offers sports and other activities, a student’s right to participate becomes constitutionally tied to their right to participate in public education, as well as due process.

“We further hold that Montana students have constitutional protections in participation in offered extracurricular activities, that the District Court erred by reducing that constitutional right to a privilege or a contractual interest, and that the MHSA failed to provide (Hert) with constitutionally sufficient due process when it failed to provide notice of the issue, evidence, and timely written notice of its determination sufficient for judicial review by a court,” the opinion said.

The court also found that while the MHSA is free to set its own rules and interpret them on a case-by-case basis, it must also create a record of its decisions allowing students and parents to understand the reasoning behind those decisions, and a clear way to appeal, which could include going to court. And even then, the Supreme Court decision said, there must be enough of a record established that independent judges have a record to review – something that Gustafson said was difficult because of the MHSA’s refusal to comment.

The court record said the MHSA Executive Board heard Hert’s appeal on Aug. 16, 2023, and unanimously denied it at the meeting, but did not publicly deliberate or elaborate on it and failed to send follow-up documentation to Hert. Executive Director Brian Michelotti told the Hert family that MHSA did not have to comment on the reasons for the decision, according to the court record. 

“Both the MHSA and the students subject to its eligibility rules deserve a final decision on the merits of this appeal, as the Herts raise important questions related to due process the MHSA is or is not providing to students who are declared ineligible to compete by the MHSA,” the court said. “Without guidance from this court, the problems will repeat themselves.” 

Not only did the Supreme Court overturn the three primary findings from the district court, it also said that the way the high school association treated Hert left him at a distinct disadvantage.

“Because the MHSA provided no written record regarding the reasons for its determination, (Hert) was essentially forced to fly blind when seeking judicial review of the MHSA’s decision,” the court said. “The MHSA’s actions in this case clearly fall short of the due process required to those MHSA determines are ineligible to participate in extracurricular activities.”

Even though Hert has graduated, and the chance for him to play one final season of high school basketball has passed, the court said the issue is not completely moot and a remedy is possible. 

“Because no court can now restore his participation in that season, individualized injunctive relief is no longer available. That does not, however, eliminate the availability of declaratory relief under (Montana law).”

In other words: Hert’s loss may be a future athlete’s win as the high court set out a new framework for appeals, especially given many of them have short windows to act because of competitive high school seasons.

“A declaratory judgment will clarify that once extracurricular activities are offered, students have a constitutional protection against unconstitutional deprivation of the right to participation in extracurricular activities and are entitled to procedures sufficient to permit judicial review of adverse eligibility determination,” the court order said.

The order was clear that the court was not ruling on the validity of “The Semester Rule,” which was at stake in Hert’s case. That particular rule limits how much eligibility a student participant has based on the number of semesters enrolled. And the court said it was not making a determination about Hert’s eligibility. Instead, the court adopted three procedural due process rules going forward that MHSA must provide:

1. Notice when key issues or cases are being decided.
2. An opportunity for students to be heard.
3. A record and written decision that will allow a court to review a case.

“The absence of a reviewable record and written decision in this case fails to satisfy those minimum constitutional requirements,” the court said. 

Justices Katherine Bidegaray, Beth Baker, Laurie McKinnon and Jim Rice signed onto the decision, with Rice offering a concurring decision which disputed the idea that MHSA is a strictly  private organization, and therefore did not need to worry about constitutional requirements of due process. 

Citing several similar cases at the federal level, Rice pointed out that many states have similarly organized high-school activities associations and they are regarded as a public entity. 

“Here, the MHSA mirrors the (Tennessee association) in material respects, including that there is the kind of ‘pervasive entwinement’ with the State of Montana sufficient to treat the MHSA as a state actor,” Rice wrote. “The MHSA describes itself as ‘the governing body for interscholastic activities in the state of Montana’ and has 182 member high schools, most of which are public entities that provide funding to the MHSA through membership fees …Although it is a private association, it meets the criteria of a ‘state actor.’”

In the backdrop of an effort to increase American energy production and mineral exploration, Montana Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy and Democratic counterpart from Delaware, Sen. Chris Coons, introduced a bill Friday to “unmask” Chinese labor abuses in Africa.

A press release announcing the legislation said it “underscores the cost of reliance on rogue states like China” that supply critical minerals the United States needs. The legislation would essentially create a list of each Chinese entity that uses child labor or causes environmental harm.

If passed, the Secretary of State would be directed to update the list of mining entities controlled by the Chinese government annually for the next five years. That list would then be given to Congressional committees and posted online.

“As we restore American energy dominance and onshore critical mineral production, it is imperative that we expose the reality behind China’s grip on critical minerals: forced labor, child exploitation, and environmental destruction,” Sheehy said in a press release. “The United States cannot afford to rely on opaque and abusive supply chains for the resources that power our national security, and this bipartisan bill will bring long-overdue transparency and accountability.”

The legislation specifically mentions African countries: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Guinea, Zambia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, though adds “or any other country in Africa” that uses forced labor or causes harm to the environment.

The U.S. imports large amounts of minerals from Africa, including platinum, chromium, and palladium. President Donald Trump — as well as some Montana Congressional candidates, including Aaron Flint — have pushed for greater mineral exploration around the country.

In Montana, the Sibanye-Stillwater mine has been has been at the center of that, after Russian actors manipulated the price of palladium shortly before its war against Ukraine, according to the U.S. Government. That left 700 Montanans without jobs.

Meanwhile, in Libby, federal officials approved a Hecla Mining Company project in the the Cabinet Mountains near Libby, which is said to contain copper and silver. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was the world’s second-largest copper producer in 2025, followed by Peru, China and Russia.

That project has also drawn a lawsuit, saying the U.S. Forest Service wasn’t following its own guidelines regarding water protection laws.

And in the Bitterroot, the Sheep Creek project 40 miles southwest of Darby looked to explore, “gallium, samarium, scandium, neodymium, praseodymium and other economically viable heavy rare earth elements.”

Gallium, which is used in solar cells, among other sensitive electronics (including lasers) is procured almost exclusively in China. China also dominates production of neodymium and praseodymium, which are used in wind turbines, hard drives, audio equipment and magnets.

Those mines have not been met without resistance and with worries about the environmental impact of American mines. Specifically the Sheep Creek project, which drew over 500 people to the Ravalli County Fairgrounds, drew worries about water and longterm impacts of mining. A man who described himself as the sole survivor of a class action lawsuit lawsuit in Libby over asbestos poisoning spoke at that meeting, describing the impacts of mining on the community.

The Ravalli County Commission voted unanimously to oppose the project.

And Montanans don’t have to look further than Butte, Anaconda and the Clark Fork River cleanup to see firsthand the longterm impacts of mining.

Sheehy’s release including several statements from American mining interests, who said they lead the world in environmentally friendly and safe mining.

“When it comes to protecting workers and the environment while responsibly producing the minerals we all need, the American mining industry does it best,” said Mark Compton, the executive director of the American Exploration and Mining Association. “Documenting the practices of overseas operations that are owned or controlled by Chinese Communist Party entities highlights the urgent need to secure our supply chains by emphasizing domestic mineral production.”

Editor’s note: Sen. Chris Coon’s name in this story has been corrected. 

The U.S. Forest Service announced last month that $248 million in funding through the Secure Rural Schools program would be distributed to counties across the country, including more than $14 million for Montana counties.

Western states, including Montana, receive a majority of the overall funding, which is based on federal land. The state’s congressional delegation helped move a bill to reauthorize the program through Congress late last year.

Congress has previously allowed the program to lapse in 2023.

“Secure Rural Schools is a commitment to communities like ours that live with the reality of federal land ownership every day,” Rep. Ryan Zinke, a Republican representing western Montana, said in a press release. “When Washington controls the land, it has a responsibility to help keep our roads maintained, our schools open, and our first responders supported. Timber communities have been hit especially hard with radical environmental organizations and activist judges stalling timber sales and cutting off reliable sources of revenue. After the lapse in 2023, counties were left in limbo. This funding provides needed relief and restores a measure of certainty.”

Since 2000, the Secure Rural Schools program has helped rural counties with large swaths of public, tax-exempt federally-owned forest land. The federal government, through the U.S. Forest Service, has a funding formula to share 25% of revenue generated on federal land based on economic activity, timber harvest levels and other considerations that vary by county, with payments going toward rural schools, road maintenance and other programs that serve the counties.

A funding bill co-sponsored by Montana Republican Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy passed the Senate in June, though the House didn’t take up a vote until December. The authorization bill included retroactive payments for 2024, as well as reauthorizing the program through 2026.

In Montana, northwest counties, the heart of the once-dominant timber industry, receive the highest payments from the Forest Service through the program. Lincoln County is expected to receive $3.6 million, followed by Sanders with $1.4 million and Flathead County just under $1 million.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

By Zara Norman/Medill News Service

WASHINGTON — John Bailey said he’s saved tens of thousands of dollars over the last decade by relying on a generic prescription to lower his cholesterol.

The 68-year-old from central Texas was able to get a generic because the patent on a brand-name medication expired. He and many other Americans worried that a case the U.S. Supreme Court heard April 29 could restrict access to generic drugs more broadly.

“It’s probably going to make a difference in how much we pay,” Bailey said while sightseeing near the court.

The case, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., will decide whether generic drug manufacturer Hikma infringed on a cardiovascular medication patented by Amarin when it marketed an unpatented use.

That practice, known as “skinny labeling,” is a key pathway that brings cheaper generic drugs to market sooner. The Journal of the American Medical Association found skinny labels were used by 43% of generics from 2015 to 2019. 

Should justices affirm the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s 2024 ruling for Amarin, experts warned it could have a chilling effect on the generic industry writ large, which would seriously hike up drug costs.

“It would mean that the monopoly prices of prescription drugs that are currently being paid right now have no end to them,” Charles Duan, a patent lawyer who wrote a “friend-of-the-court” brief in favor of Hikma, told Medill News Service in an interview ahead of oral arguments.

For consumers, higher prices would be untenable. Six in 10 US adults are already worried about the affordability of their prescription drugs, per a March Kaiser Family Foundation poll. Drug prices fall with an increasing number of generic competitors, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Issue is narrow, drugmaker says

The case deals with an issue that policymakers have debated for decades: whether federal policy should encourage drug companies to develop new products by giving them monopoly control for a certain number of years, or seek to make drugs more affordable by shortening the monopoly window.

Amarin argued to the court  that the case hinges on a narrow regulatory matter that would have neither a bearing on skinny labels, nor on the 1984 law that established a framework for cheaper drug manufacturing.

Tegan Berry, a spokesperson for Amarin, said in an email drugmakers would lose their business purpose for research if the company loses the case.

“The broad safe harbor Hikma seeks for skinny labels will eviscerate financial incentives for research into new uses for existing drug treatments,” Berry wrote. 

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed wary of how a finding for Amarin could impact the industry writ large. Kavanaugh in particular emphasized that the 1984 law balanced innovation with affordability, and ensured the skinny label pathway was codified.

Kavanaugh cited a brief written for Hikma by former U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who was one of that statute’s principal authors, saying the Federal Circuit’s decision threatened to “undermine” the generic pharmaceutical industry.

The brief “points out, you know, generics have saved $3.4 trillion over the past 10 years, but the Federal Circuit’s decision leaves generic drug companies in the dark about what might expose them to liability,” Kavanaugh said while questioning Michael Huston, the attorney representing Amarin. “That’s going to have some serious implications market-wide.”

Generics expand access

The concern for generic manufacturers is the threat of infringement lawsuits will force them to wait until patents expire to bring drugs to market, rather than trying sooner with one unpatented use.

“Generic companies won’t choose that pathway if, at best, it means paying millions in legal fees and, at worst, a massive damages award,” Charles Klein, the attorney representing Hikma, said during arguments.

“The risk of liability and what it could do to a generic, I would think, would be pretty significant,” Jackson said while questioning Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart.

Some experts were concerned that a decision for Amarin could impact other generic products, not just pharmaceuticals.

“Drugs are obviously sort of the poster child here, because they’re so expensive and people are very concerned about drug prices,” Duan said. “But this is not a case that’s specific about drugs. In that sense, it’s really a case about whether or not generic products can exist.”

Generic products can seriously save consumers. Store-brand foods cost up to 40% less than name brand items at Wegman’s and Stop & Shop, a 2022 CNET study found. Any savings go a long way — food prices rose 2.7% from March 2025 to 2026, according to the Bureau of Labor.

Justices are not expected to issue a decision in the case until near the of their term in early July, either to dismiss Amarin’s complaint or send it back to trial court in Delaware. 

Already, Stewart warned the court, generic manufacturers will have a “substantial disincentive” for entering the market and are holding off now pending the court’s decision.

“This is a real test for how we want to balance innovation versus affordability in this country,” John Murphy, CEO of the advocacy group Association for Accessible Medicines, said. “We need to make sure that balance is more appropriately favored for consumers.”

While federal efforts to strengthen victim compensation are underway, states play a critical role in determining whether survivors of gun violence can actually access that support, according to a new report from Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit gun research and advocacy organization. 

Access to victim compensation varies widely by state, with nearly 30% of applications denied nationwide in 2024, according to federal data from the Department of Justice’s Office of Victims of Crime. Incomplete paperwork is the most common reason, but strict eligibility rules, short filing deadlines and requirements that the crimes be reported to law enforcement also prevent many survivors from receiving aid, the report found.

Each year, tens of thousands of people survive shootings in the United States, often facing lasting injuries, trauma and financial strain. State-run crime victim compensation programs, which are primarily funded through the federal Victims of Crime Act, or VOCA, are designed to help cover costs such as medical care, lost wages and funeral expenses.

But the Everytown for Gun Safety report highlighted significant disparities in how those programs operate. Average payouts, denial rates and eligibility rules differ across states, shaping whether survivors can successfully access support.

In some states, claims can be denied based on a victim’s prior criminal record or their perceived role in the incident — practices the report says can disproportionately affect Black applicants and rely on subjective or biased judgments.

The analysis also pointed to administrative hurdles, including complex applications, limited staffing and slow processing times. A lack of awareness of these programs further limits access, especially for people who do not report crimes to police. Federal crime data suggests that nearly half of violent crimes are not reported to police. 

New laws in New York, which went into effect late last year, made changes that the report’s authors cite as examples of how states can improve access. The laws expanded the time victims have to apply for assistance, increased reimbursement caps for funeral expenses and reduced reliance on police reports to verify claims.

Several states this year, including Alabama, California, Idaho and Minnesota, are considering legislation aimed at supporting crime victims. Some of the legislation would  extend application deadlines and provide mental health services for young survivors of gun violence.

In 2024, victim compensation programs paid out about $405 million across nearly 219,000 claims nationwide, according to federal data cited in the report.

Funding for those programs has fluctuated over the past decade. The federal crime victims fund, which is financed through criminal fines and penalties imposed by the feds, dropped sharply from about $13 billion in 2017 to roughly $1 billion by 2023, leading to cuts to state programs and service providers. Congress has taken steps to stabilize funding in recent years, but funding has continued to fluctuate.

The Trump administration last year also froze or canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in grants from the federal Department of Justice, including an estimated $50 million for victim services.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

It’s difficult to ignore the news these days, unless maybe you’re underwater.  Which would seem to be the case for Montana’s Sen. Tim Sheehy since, in spite of farmers and ranchers not being able to afford the fertilizer they need for crops or the diesel to power their equipment, Sheehy believes the top issue for which he needs to introduce legislation is to build Trump’s fever-dream ballroom complete with underground bunker. 

Really, you can’t make this stuff up. 

Here’s what’s actually going on nationally and in Montana that, one might think, should take a higher priority than a massive, very expensive vanity ballroom built where the East Wing of the White House used to be before it was illegally torn down by the most self-absorbed and unpopular president in American history.

A brief rundown of the latest news paints the picture of what our state and nation are actually facing.  

• Yes, 61 days later we are still stuck in the war in Iran with no end in sight. The cost so far? $26 billion as the Pentagon revealed to a Congressional hearing this week.  That’s 26 thousand million dollars that mostly went up in smoke. But the Pentagon says that’s actually “low-balling it” because it will cost billions more to rebuild the bases and facilities that were destroyed by Iran’s drones and missiles. 
• While we’re stuck in a pointless war, guess what else is stuck — yep 20% of the world’s oil and gas that normally flows through the Straits of Hormuz, which is controlled by Iran.  
• The result?  Oil just hit $126 a barrel…the highest in four years since the onset of the Ukraine War spiked global prices. The national average for a gallon of diesel is $5.51 and those “big boy” tractors do not sip fuel, they guzzle — as do heavy duty ag trucks and the semis to ship products to market.
• But the ag sector’s problems don’t end there.  The recent American Farm Bureau survey found 70% of American farmers and 66% of Montana famers “unable to afford all the fertilizer they need” because prices are up a whopping 46% since the end of February. “Together, these overlapping increases in fuel and fertilizer expenses help explain why more than 90% of farmers surveyed reported that their financial conditions have worsened or remained the same since last year.” 
• When fuel and production costs go up, consumer costs go up, 3.5% inflation means every Montanan is now being sucked dry at the pump and in stores while there’s no resolution in sight to the US-Israel Iran War.  Even Wall St. is mocking Trump with a new nickname — NACHO, meaning “Not A Chance Hormuz Opens.” 

There are too many on-going crises for one column, but suffice it to say it’s against this background that the actions of Montana’s junior senator must be judged. 

And Sheehy’s priority? “Sheehy says he’ll introduce legislation to approve Trump’s White House ballroom” which he says is “common sense” and wants it fast-tracked. Other GOP members of Congress say they want taxpayer funds used in spite of yet another of Trump’s false claims that it would be paid for by private donations.

As SCUBA divers know, the “thumb’s up” so often used by Trump actually means “time to go up to the surface” between divers.  Sheehy is a former Navy SEAL and knows that.  So “thumbs up” senator — it’s time for this particular SEAL to go up, get some oxygen to his brain, and remember he’s there to represent Montanans, not build gilded vanity ballrooms while his constituents suffer.

A lawsuit filed against the City of Hardin and its former police chief says they violated the civil rights of an owner of a tow-truck company after she publicly complained about getting kicked off the city’s rotation list, and lost a potential source of income.

Laurie Tschetter owns GV Towing in Hardin and filed a lawsuit in federal court saying that the former Hardin Police Chief Paul M. George, Jr., who has since moved to Bullhead City, Arizona to take over as chief there, booted her company from a rotation list. It goes on to say he insisted he was not obligated to add her company to the rotation, even though she held the proper state qualifications.

In its lawsuit, attorney Matthew Monforton, who represents GV Towing and Tschetter, allege that state law requires a tow-truck rotation system to avoid situations like this, and that city officials have refused to follow state law, as well as retaliating against her for using free speech to be critical of George.

The basis of the suit

Tschetter said the issue began in 2024, when George confronted her in a parking lot of a Hardin store, “berating her for allegedly failing to provide an estimated time of arrival for a towing job.” 

Tschetter told George there was a phone outage caused by Verizon and the failure was beyond her control, according to court documents. 

Around two months later, she claims George again “berated” her for filling a missing persons report with Big Horn County. According to court documents, George told her that she should have filed the report with Hardin Police because that was his jurisdiction, not the county’s. 

Tschetter, apparently upset with the interaction, filed a complaint against George with the Montana Public Safety Officer Standards and Training. 

Two months after Tschetter filed the complaint, George emailed the department, “GV Towing is ineligible to tow any vehicles.” In that communication, George said GV Towing had lost state certification. George also said that GV Towing would not be allowed back on the list without his approval.

Tschetter said her state certifications never changed. 

“George provided GV Towing with no notice of the removal and no opportunity to respond or be heard before it was effectuated,” the lawsuit said. 

Tschetter, as part of the lawsuit, alleges a competitor had been giving gift cards to law enforcement officers, based upon conversations with Big Horn County Sheriff Jeraie Middlestead. 

The Daily Montanan reached out to city officials regarding the lawsuit. It received no response. 

Tschetter continued on her quest to have the company restored to the rotation, appearing before the Hardin City Council on Nov. 4, 2025 to protest her removal and George’s conduct. 

“George responded during the same public comment session by accusing Ms. Tschetter of lying and twice threatening to investigate and prosecute her,” the lawsuit said.

She continued her fight and several days later Tschetter filed a records request for a log of all police department requested tow calls, including the makes, models of the vehicles towed, as well as the dates and times. 

City attorney Jordan Knudsen denied the request, saying no such list exists and the city “was not obligated to create one.”

Shortly before leaving, George decided that GV Towing’s removal from the list of towing providers “will remain permanent.”

George is being sued in his personal capacity. 

On April 7, Tschetter was invited to attend a Hardin City Council meeting in which it would take up the issue of an equitable rotation system, but three of the five members voted to table the idea as well as expressing support for George’s decision, according to court documents.

When Tschetter pressed the city for reasons that she should be excluded from the towing rotation list, Knudsen responded that the reasons for excluding her was based on information between George and the attorney’s office, which are protected by attorney-client privilege.

“Under well-established law, a party may not use attorney-client privilege as both a sword and shield,” Monforton wrote to the city in the days leading up to filing the lawsuit. “By expressly relying on the substance of purported documentation to justify its action, the city has placed those materials – and the basis for its decision – directly at issue.”

Equitable rotation system

Montana, like other states, has adopted a model for tow-truck rotations. The state adopted the policy in 1995 and Monforton told the Daily Montanan in a previous interview it was created to avoid this kind of dispute and to avoid favoritism or kickbacks. 

With the 1995 law, legislators created a tow truck complaint resolution committee. That committee hears complaints from the public and can adjudicate disputes ranging from tow truck practices to fees. Montana Title 61, Chapter 8, Part 9 regulates a variety of tow-truck related issues, including fees, towing and impound charges. 

Tow-truck operators who want to be assigned to law enforcement calls – from the state’s highway patrol to local police departments – need a letter of appointment from the state which certifies the operator meets certain requirements, including insurance, staffing and a place of operation that the public can access. 

According to the lawsuit, Hardin does not have a rotation system outlined by the state – a point which the City of Hardin doesn’t dispute in exhibits included in the court file. However, Knudsen, the city’s attorney, said Hardin does not have to follow or implement an equitable tow truck rotation system. 

“Since the City of Hardin is not obligated to participate in an equitable tow rotation system, the decision on which companies are used for towing has been up to the Chief of Police,” said a letter from Knudsen on April 16. 

Monforton argues that every day GV Towing is kept off the rotation, his client is losing money. 

“As a direct and proximate result of George’s unconstitutional conduct, GV Towing has suffered, and continues to suffer financial harm, including the loss of towing referrals and associated revenue that GV Towing would have received had it remained on the HPD rotation,” the lawsuit said.

The suit also names the City of Hardin because it alleges that the city had a duty to uphold Tschetter’s constitutional rights, which included due process and the freedom to speak out about the conduct of city employees.

“Chief George was operating HPD’s towing referrals without any procedural safeguards,” the lawsuit said. “The city took no corrective action, provided no training or supervision to ensure compliance with the act’s rotation requirements or with the constitutional requirement of notice and hearing before depriving a tow operator of its rotation rights, and made no effort to reinstate GV Towing to the rotation.”

The suit also says the city also admitted it was booting GV Towing because of complaints and public statements protected by the First Amendment. 

“The First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions for engaging in public speech. This prohibition applies with full force to retaliation against a private citizen for speech directed at government officials and agencies,” the suit said. “Any doubt as to George’s retaliatory motive is eliminated by his own admission. In his March 31, 2026 letter declaring GT Towing’s exclusion permanent, George expressly identified Ms. Tschetter’s protected activities as ‘the primary factors influencing this determination.’’

The lawsuit asks for compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and to restore GV Towing to the towing rotation.

Not the only case

This is not the only case before Montana courts on this issue. 

Monforton, a Bozeman-based attorney and former state lawmaker, is representing a towing company in Billings which was also suspended from that city’s rotation system. That suit said that a former district court Judge Russ Fagg, who also ran as a candidate for U.S. Senate, disputed a towing charge and the way Anderson Towing handled a situation involving Fagg’s family member.

The suit alleges that when he didn’t receive a satisfactory resolution, he complained to a longtime friend, Billings Police Department Chief Rich St. John who the suit accuses of using his authority to boot Anderson Towing from the city towing list. 

Federal judge Donald W. Molloy last year ruled that Anderson Towing must be restored to the rotation while the case is pending.

Montanans who consume fish from many of its waterways should take care when doing so, a combined statement from three state agencies says.

The state released updated guidance because per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been found in fish across the state. Updated guidelines, including which areas to take particular care with, can be found on the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks website.

There are 21 new or updated fish advisories, the state said in a release. 

PFAS are man-made chemicals that degrade extremely slowly over time and are associated with health issues, including damage to human and animal hormones, reproductive, and immune systems. They are also linked to certain cancers and are sometimes called “forever chemicals.”

In a statement three agencies – FWP, the state Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Environmental Quality – said the updated advisory was based on several years of research.

Additionally, the agencies said in the release that they, “are not regulatory standards” and are meant to make people more aware of potential risks.

“This advisory is based on the agencies’ published results of 2023 and 2024 fish tissue and surface water sampling efforts for PFAS in select waterbodies across the state,” the state release says. “The goal of the PFAS sampling effort was to screen edible-sized fish for PFAS contamination in waterbodies across Montana.”

The new regulations ask the public to be cognizant of how often they’re eating the fish per month based on the size of the fish. For example, the state is advising men to not eat Walleye larger than 18 inches from Bighorn Reservoir and women and children to not eat Walleye larger than 14 inches.

“While it is important to be aware that eating fish caught in Montana may expose individuals to low levels of PFAS in some waterbodies, eating a moderate amount of a variety of fish can provide significant health benefits for many people,” the release says.

Additionally, the state said the data is likely not representative of every waterbody in the state.

“Sample locations were selected based on proximity to confirmed or potential sources of PFAS and distributed across important regional fisheries,” the release says. “At least one PFAS chemical was detected in fish tissue at 12 of the 14 locations sampled and in surface water at 2 of the 14 locations.”

Montana developed a plan to look at the issue in 2020. It’s also been a major issue in Washington state, including firefighting foam at an airport north of Seattle and issues around some military bases in the state. Multiple military installations in Montana are also listed as “PFAS sites of concern” by DEQ.

https:fwp.mt.gov:binaries:content:assets:fwp:fish:montana-sport-fish-consumption-guidelines-final-4.21.26

President Donald Trump on Thursday moved to capitalize on a U.S. Supreme Court decision weakening the federal Voting Rights Act as he urged one governor to gerrymander his state and praised another for suspending an approaching primary.

The court’s decision on Wednesday struck down Louisiana’s congressional map as unconstitutional and empowered other Republican states to break apart districts where most residents are Black for a partisan advantage.

The opinion could reinvigorate Trump’s push for states to redraw their maps to give Republicans an edge in the November midterm elections. The president’s party typically performs poorly in the midterms and Trump’s approval has fallen in polls, making Democrats hopeful they can retake the U.S. House.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry and state Attorney General Liz Murrill announced on Thursday that the state’s congressional primary election, set for mid-May, would be suspended. The pause gives state lawmakers time to draw a new map aimed at ousting at least one, if not two, Black Democrats.

Trump thanked Landry on his social media platform, Truth Social, for “moving so quickly to fix the Unconstitutionality” of the state’s map. In a separate post, Trump wrote that he had spoken with Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who faces calls to immediately gerrymander the state.

“I had a very good conversation with Governor Bill Lee, of Tennessee, this morning, wherein he stated that he would work hard to correct the unconstitutional flaw in the Congressional Maps of the Great State of Tennessee,” Trump wrote.

A spokesperson for Lee didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The redistricting rush 

Historically, states draw new maps once a decade after each census but eight states have now broken that norm after Trump urged Republicans to gerrymander. 

Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Utah have drawn fresh GOP-leaning maps, as well as Florida, whose legislature approved a gerrymander hours after the Supreme Court’s decision. California and Virginia have enacted new maps favorable to Democrats. 

Before Wednesday, the redistricting war was essentially a wash. But the court’s decision gives Republicans more options to gain the upper hand this year, if states can move quickly. 

Alabama, Georgia, Missouri and Tennessee are among the red states with upcoming primaries where lawmakers could theoretically still act. In some states — like Georgia and Tennessee — top Republicans haven’t ruled out action. In others, like Alabama and Georgia, GOP leaders have ruled out or played down the possibility of action this year.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, urged states to gerrymander their maps before the midterm elections.

“I think all states that have unconstitutional maps should look at that very carefully and I think they should do it before the midterms,” Johnson told CNN on Thursday. 

Dems also talk gerrymandering

Democrats have also floated the possibility of additional gerrymanders — whether this year or ahead of the 2028 election. 

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said on social media after the court’s decision that she would work with the legislature to change the state’s redistricting process. New York currently uses a commission system to draw maps, limiting opportunities for partisan gerrymandering.

At a news conference hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday, Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat, suggested she would support additional Democratic gerrymanders.

“It values partisan politics over discrimination,” Sewell said of the court’s decision. “It’s really, really, really — I mean, it takes us back. So to the extent it’s urging, it’s inviting red states to totally take away all of the Democratic seats and be totally red, it also encourages blue states to do exactly the same.”

WASHINGTON — Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus raised serious concerns Thursday about the impact of a recent Department of Justice decision that will make it easier to deport hundreds of thousands of people brought into the country unlawfully as children, referred to as Dreamers. 

Texas Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro said the April 24 decision from the Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals, “put a target for deportation on every single Dreamer in this country.”

The decision from the BIA found that having Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, status is not enough to prevent a deportation, making it easier for Dreamers to be removed from the U.S. There are roughly 500,000 DACA recipients. 

The case before the three-judge panel stemmed from an appeal from immigration attorneys from the Department of Homeland Security after an immigration judge terminated removal proceedings for a DACA recipient, Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago that cited her status as reason she could not be deported.  

While the decision does not mean Santiago will be immediately deported, it does set precedent for similar cases. 

Separately, immigration advocates have warned that DACA recipients have been swept up in President Donald Trump’s mass deportation drive and have been detained despite their legal status. 

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat said the decision will allow immigration judges to remove DACA recipients first without terminating their status.

“Before, you had to terminate their DACA status, before they got deported,” the New York Democrat said. “Now they could go straight ahead and do this egregious action by the Board of Immigration Appeals. This is a serious escalation (of) the assault against DACA recipients.”

Spokespeople for the Justice Department did not return a message seeking comment Thursday.

Trump ‘crusade’ against DACA

Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada said the recent decision “is the Trump administration’s latest move to attack Dreamers.” She criticized Trump for going back on his comments that he would “work with the Democrats on a plan,” to keep DACA recipients in the country. 

“That is just an indefensible decision,” she said. “Their ruling on DACA is a clear escalation in President Trump’s crusade to strip protections from DACA recipients. He is attacking the program from every angle.”

DACA was created by President Barack Obama’s administration in 2012 to protect eligible residents from deportation and allow them to obtain temporary work permits,  driver’s licenses and to qualify for in-state tuition for higher education.

In Trump’s first term, he tried to rescind the program in 2017 by halting new applications and sending hundreds of thousands of recipients across the country into limbo. The Supreme Court eventually ruled against the Trump administration.

Some Republican-led states have challenged the legality of DACA and an appeals court allowed for work permits to expire in Texas, but kept deportation protections. 

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed a bill Thursday that will fund almost every agency in the Department of Homeland Security for the next five months, ending the shutdown that began in mid-February. 

The House approved the bill, which doesn’t include additional spending on Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Border Patrol, on a voice vote earlier in the day.

The DHS shutdown, the third funding lapse in the last year, stalled paychecks for federal employees throughout much of the department, including those at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Transportation Security Administration. 

Trump enacting the DHS appropriations bill finally marks an end to the annual government funding process that was supposed to be wrapped up before the end of September. 

Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, said during brief floor debate it was “about damn time” Republican leaders brought the bill to the floor. 

DeLauro said that “from the outset” Democrats wanted to negotiate with Republicans to address “armed, masked agents marauding our streets and terrorizing people in our communities.”

“It has been the Republicans (who) have been intransigent and not willing to do that,” she said. “But there we go. Today we’re going to do it. It could have been done 76 days ago. I’ll take it today.” 

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy said separating out funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol from the DHS funding bill “is offensive to the men and women who serve” in those agencies. 

“While we are all unified in funding the rest of DHS, we are absolutely horrified that we are blowing up the appropriations process to target those brave men and women who are doing the Lord’s work to keep us safe from cartels, from dangerous actors and from illegal aliens across the streets of America that have been endangering the American people,” he said. 

Republicans plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process to fund ICE and the Border Patrol for the rest of Trump’s term without negotiating any new guardrails on immigration agents. 

One shutdown after another

Instead of completing the dozen annual government funding bills before their Oct. 1 deadline, lawmakers’ stark differences over funding and policy led to a trio of shutdowns that stalled paychecks for federal employees and wreaked havoc on hundreds of programs. 

The first shutdown, which affected much of the federal government, lasted 43 days as Democrats tried unsuccessfully to extend the enhanced tax credits for people who purchase their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

A partial shutdown lasting four days ended in early February when lawmakers approved a stopgap spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security alongside the remaining full-year appropriations bills for other departments. 

But lawmakers failed to reach a bipartisan agreement to place constraints on federal immigration agents before the temporary funding bill for DHS expired on Feb. 14, leading to a third shutdown for the department.  

Senate Democrats demanded several restrictions on immigration agents after federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. While Republicans control both chambers of Congress, most bills cannot move through the Senate without the support of at least 60 lawmakers. 

After nearly six weeks, Senate Republican leaders agreed to remove funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol from the DHS appropriations bill, unanimously sending it to the House for approval in late March.

House hangup

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said at the time a plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process to provide three years of funding for ICE and Border Patrol wasn’t acceptable. He refused to put the Senate-passed bill on the House floor for a vote. 

The Senate tried again in early April, sending an identical bill to the House, which Johnson declined to schedule a vote on until Thursday. 

The House vote on the DHS appropriations bill happened less than a day after Republicans in that chamber voted to adopt the budget resolution that unlocks the reconciliation process. Republican senators approved the tax and spending blueprint earlier this month. 

Congress’ budget resolution isn’t a bill and doesn’t need to go to the president for his signature in order to take effect. It doesn’t actually fund anything, but is designed to help lawmakers plan tax and spending policy for the next decade. 

GOP lawmakers intend to use the reconciliation process the budget resolution provides to approve a bill in the coming weeks that will provide up to $140 billion for ICE and Border Patrol. That avoids the need to place any new constraints on federal immigration officers in order to get Democrats’ votes to limit Senate debate. 

Members of Congress will, however, still need to find agreement on funding for the rest of government ahead of the next fiscal year, which will begin on Oct. 1. 

Another impasse will mean another shutdown, just weeks before the November midterm elections. 

WASHINGTON — The man who allegedly targeted President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner agreed in federal court Thursday to remain jailed as the Department of Justice continues its investigation, including examining ballistics to prove a single shot fired at a Secret Service agent came from the defendant’s weapon.

Cole Tomas Allen, 31, of California, appeared before U.S. District Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya in Washington, D.C., five days after he allegedly charged security one level above the Washington Hilton ballroom where Trump, Vice President JD Vance and several Cabinet officials were attending the annual black-tie event that dates back a century.

Allen is charged with attempting to assassinate the president, interstate transportation of a firearm with intent to commit a felony and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.

He faces up to life in prison if convicted of attempting to kill the president. Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet members all safely evacuated the ballroom. A Secret Service agent was hit by gun fire, but was protected by his bulletproof vest. 

Government prosecutors argued Wednesday in a court filing Allen prepared for a mass casualty event. Allen was allegedly armed with a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun with one spent cartridge in the barrel and eight unfired rounds in the magazine. 

The defendant also had on him 16 unfired cartridges, attached to his body with Velcro and in a small bag, plus a .38 caliber pistol loaded with 10 rounds, and two other handgun magazines, each with nine rounds, according to the government.

The filing also alleges Allen carried “two knives, four daggers, multiple sheaths, multiple holsters, needle nose pliers, (and) wire cutters.” 

Detention argument

Despite Allen conceding to remain jailed, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles R. Jones requested to present the government’s reasoning in court to keep him detained.

Upadhyaya denied the request, calling it “a completely inefficient way of proceeding,” given DOJ had already won its motion.

“I guarantee you that if the defendant challenges his detention in the future, you would be doing your exact same presentation all over again,” Upadhyaya said.

She asked: “What audience is your supplemental information for?”

Defense attorney Teriza Abe said she wasn’t contesting the government met its argument for detention.

Abe asked the judge to intervene in Allen’s detention conditions. He is being held at the D.C. jail in a “safe cell” that is monitored 24 hours a day meant to prevent him from endangering others or self-harm.

“He’s not a danger to anyone in the jail,” Abe said.

Upadhyaya instructed her to file a motion to allow the government’s response. 

“I don’t have the authority, nor would I presume I can override the judgement of the jail,” Upadhyaya said.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for May 11. Abe requested prosecutors provide evidence for the defense’s review by May 8.

Shot at Secret Service agent

Allen’s attorneys requested Thursday that prosecutors provide evidence ahead of the detention hearing, including any information and video showing Allen did not fire a shot at the Secret Service agent, referred to by the government in court filings as V.G.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro responded that the government’s preliminary investigation shows Allen fired one shot in the direction of the Secret Service agent.

“With respect to your specific requests for information, the government’s investigation is ongoing and its analysis of the crime scene evidence and recovered ballistics evidence is not yet complete,” Pirro responded.

However, Pirro also wrote that Allen has not been charged with crimes against any other individual, except the president.

Allen’s lawyers protest jail communications setup

Allen’s attorneys said in a filing Wednesday the D.C. jail personnel had not permitted the defendant to meet separately with counsel.

“Despite the guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, DOC staff have refused Mr. Allen the opportunity to communicate with counsel in a way that protects the confidentiality owed to him,” they wrote. 

The public defenders said they had to speak to Allen via a phone booth where he was restrained.

“Counsel were forced to sit in an open, lobby area with jail staff and other attorneys standing nearby who could overhear the entirety of counsel’s side of the conversation,” according to the filing. 

U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Sharbaugh ordered D.C. Department of Corrections staff Thursday to permit unrestricted visits.

Abe said counsel was then able to meet with the defendant prior to Thursday’s hearing.

‘I don’t think about it’

Trump said Thursday afternoon that he doesn’t think about the risk of assassination.

“I don’t think about it. If I did, I wouldn’t be effective,” he said while speaking to reporters in the Oval Office.

When asked if there’s been any consideration for him to wear a bulletproof vest, Trump said, “I don’t know if I can handle looking 20 pounds heavier.”

On the topic of whose bullet hit the Secret Service agent’s protective vest Saturday night, Trump insisted, “It wasn’t friendly fire.”

A signed DOJ affidavit filed in federal court Monday does not specify who shot the agent.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

The U.S. House approved, 224-200, a five-year farm bill Thursday as members of Congress attempt to update major agriculture and nutrition policy after three years of extensions.

The bill would authorize subsidy and nutrition assistance programs through fiscal 2031. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would not meaningfully affect discretionary federal spending over an 11-year window, and would add $162 million in mandatory spending over the next six years.

Most Democrats opposed the bill, but 14 voted in favor. Three Republicans voted against. Six members did not vote.

The Democrats in favor were: Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Jim Costa and Adam Gray of California, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Sharice Davids of Kansas, Donald Davis of North Carolina, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Kim Schrier of Washington, Josh Riley of New York, Darren Soto of Florida and Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico.

The Republicans who voted against were: Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Andrew Garbarino of New York and Harriet Hageman of Wyoming.

Few policy changes

Because Republicans’ massive spending and tax cuts law last year made major changes to some U.S. Department of Agriculture programs, mainly the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that helped about 1 in 8 Americans afford groceries in 2024, the farm bill passed Thursday was a “skinny” version and relatively short on major policy updates.

The bill would still have to pass the Senate, which has not yet introduced its version. 

Arkansas Republican Sen. John Boozman, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, cheered House passage Thursday and said a Senate text would be released “in the coming weeks.”

“This is an important step toward updating long-overdue policies that support our farm families and strengthen rural communities,” he said of the House vote in a statement. “We’ve put more farm in the farm bill through the Working Families Tax Cuts (the GOP spending and tax cuts bill), and this legislation builds on that success.”

New authorizations needed 

Farm bills are typically written to last five years. But Congress last approved a version in 2018. Extensions of the 2018 version were enacted in 2023, 2024 and 2025.

House Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, said the measure would still meaningfully update farm and food programs.

“It is more evident than ever that rural America needs a new farm bill now, not next year or next Congress,” he said. “Producers are operating under the third consecutive farm bill extension and the simple truth is the policies of 2018 are no match for the challenges of 2026.”

Agriculture Committee ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota opposed the bill, saying it did not address any of the pressing issues that farmers and SNAP recipients face. The bill does not help alleviate the rising costs farmers face from President Donald Trump’s tariffs and “locks in the $187 billion cut” to SNAP in last year’s spending law, Craig said.

“It doesn’t fix any of the underlying policy choices by Republicans and this administration that caused the problems in the first place,” she said, adding that  continuing the SNAP cuts put “more pressure on struggling Americans at a time when the cost of groceries and healthcare continues to grow.  

Craig said Thursday morning that the measure could have helped corn farmers by including a provision to allow gasoline made with 15% ethanol available all year. The product, known as E15, increases demand for corn, but has been limited in summer months because of the pollution it can cause in high temperatures. 

Thompson responded that the committee would consider a separate measure on year-round E15 in mid-May.

Local food, foreign food aid oversight

The bill does include some new provisions.

It would authorize $200 million for a new local food procurement program, to be used largely by food banks. 

It would move authority for foreign food assistance programs under USDA from the now-defunct U.S. Agency for International Development. 

It would raise the limit that individual farmers could borrow from USDA and expand rural development programs that fund substance abuse and mental health services.

Members voted Thursday morning for an amendment that removed a controversial provision to shield pesticide producers from legal liability to warn users of a risk of cancer. If it became law, the provision would have mooted a case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this week related to a Missouri jury’s award to a user of Monsanto’s popular Roundup weedkiller who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

“Going to make hunger worse”

Several Democrats slammed the bill, but seemed to take more issue with the “big beautiful” law Trump signed last July 4. The farm bill, Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern said, would not counteract the changes in that law.

“We are considering on the floor a five-year farm bill that, quite frankly, does nothing for our farmers and screws over poor people and maintains the nearly $200 billion in cuts to SNAP,” the top House Rules Committee Democrat said on the House floor Thursday. “It is going to make hunger worse in this country.”

Thompson said Democrats were too focused on what was not in the bill, rather than the provisions that enjoy bipartisan support.

“Today, you will hear some opposing comments made that this is a partisan bill and even more on what’s not in the bill,” he said at the outset of floor debate. “This bill is filled with good policy that is also overwhelmingly bipartisan.

North Dakotans in June will have a chance to decide whether all future constitutional amendments should be limited to one subject.

The so-called single subject proposal is the only statewide measure approved for the primary election ballot. Constitutional Measure 1 would apply the requirement to both voter-initiated amendments as well as those referred by state lawmakers.

The proposal was put on the ballot through Senate Resolution 4007, which legislators passed during the 2025 session.

The purpose of the resolution is to make constitutional amendments easier to understand and to prevent “bait and switch” scenarios where unpopular provisions are buried inside larger, unrelated amendments, said Senate Majority Leader David Hogue, who sponsored the proposal. 

It’s common for states that allow voter-initiated constitutional amendments to also have a single subject requirement, according to a 2022 academic article published by the Nebraska Law Review.

Senate Resolution 4007 makes it the responsibility of the Secretary of State’s Office to verify that each proposed amendment meets this requirement before it can be certified for the ballot.

Secretary of State Michael Howe told lawmakers during the 2025 session that he would look to the North Dakota Attorney General’s Office to help him make those decisions.

The Senate passed the resolution with overwhelming support, with only one lawmaker voting no. The resolution passed in the House by a more divided vote of 57-36.

Opponents of the proposal have voiced concerns about whether a single subject requirement could be fairly enforced.

House Minority Leader Zac Ista, D-Grand Forks, said he voted against the resolution because he feels it would add a “layer of bureaucratic review” to the amendment process. He also said there isn’t clear criteria for determining what does or doesn’t meet the requirement.

“I think in North Dakota, if we entrust the secretary of state and attorney general of being the sole arbiters of what is and is not a single subject, that’s really going to handcuff voter initiatives in the state,” Ista said.

He questioned whether Article XIV, which created the North Dakota Ethics Commission, would have made it on the ballot if a single-subject requirement existed at the time.

Hogue said he doubts it would require any complicated analysis to determine whether a proposed amendment meets the rule.

“I don’t think it’s a legal judgment,” Hogue said. “I think if you’re trying to pass two different measures in one, that’s a common sense judgment.”

Ista said he also wonders why the measure is on the June primary ballot, as opposed to the general election ballot, which usually sees higher voter turnout.

The Legislature passed a similar provision in 2023 as part of a package of other potential changes to constitutional measures, including requiring a measure to be passed with two votes. That proposal failed on the 2024 general election ballot.

North Dakota’s constitution already requires that the Legislature’s bills be limited to a single subject.

That provision was grounds for a lawsuit over the 2023-2025 budget bill for North Dakota’s Office of Management and Budget. Historically, the budget bill for the Office of Management and Budget had been the last bill to pass during the legislative session. This led lawmakers to attach unrelated miscellaneous provisions to the bill, since it was the last chance to get legislation passed before the session adjourned.

The North Dakota Supreme Court in 2023 ruled this practice unconstitutional and found the Office of Management and Budget bill passed earlier that year to be of no effect. This led former Gov. Doug Burgum to call a special session in October 2023 to pass a new budget for the agency.

This story was originally produced by North Dakota Monitor, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

The cheerleading for the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library at Medora, N.D., has overwhelmed the muted, but passionate concerns and objections among long-time Badlands residents. Few want to be seen as being against the library and the progress it promises for North Dakota’s premier tourist destination, but their definition of “progress” is not the same as the project’s well-funded advocates. A recent column in a local weekly newspaper reveals the depth of their sense of loss.  

A little background: I had the good fortune many years ago to marry into a farming/ranching family that has been on the land north of Sentinel Butte for generations. The farm is a few miles from Medora. My eastern North Dakota family has been visiting the west for more than 50 years. We’ve missed the Medora Musical only a handful of times.

I’ve come to understand what my wife has always known about the ranching/rodeo and dryland farming traditions there. The western history and culture are defined by the landscape, the weather, and the resilience of the people. It is a unique place worthy of protecting from the threats of unrestrained, incompatible “progress.”

The history of Medora is forever tied to Theodore Roosevelt’s time in Dakota Territory. The late Harold Schafer, a master salesman and promoter, saw the potential of linking the Roosevelt story (and the nearby national park) to the ranching history and legends of the Badlands. Schafer and like-minded entrepreneurs envisioned sleepy, dusty, drive-by Medora as a Western-themed tourist mecca that, if developed smartly, had it all: a beautiful setting, Western lore, fascinating historical characters, and easy access. He was right.

Since his initial vision, Medora has evolved into the major summer visitor attraction in the state, and is on the verge of a new era, thanks to the successful establishment of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library on a bluff not far from the entrance to the iconic Burning Hills Amphitheatre, home of the summer musical. The library is a spectacular, well-executed, world-class accolade to the 26th president that likely will make Medora a year-round destination, not only for tourists, but also for scholars, students, fans of presidential libraries, and TR admirers.

That being said, an April 9 column in the Golden Valley News of Beach, N.D., revealed a sense of sadness and loss that has not been sufficiently acknowledged in the hoopla since the library was proposed. Carol Tescher Obrigewitch is no stranger to Medora. She is a member of a ranching and rodeo clan with deep roots in the Badlands.

The name Tescher is synonymous with the ranching heritage of Little Missouri River country. Her weekly “Merrily Along” is a delightful mix of family, history, and astute and informed observations. So when her column headlined “Progress?” was published, she was writing from the heart about the changes wrought by the library. She’s not happy, and her unhappiness is shared by a lot of long-time Medora citizens who choose not to speak out.

Also, it has not gone unnoticed that of the 18 listed members of the Library Foundation Board of Trustees, only four have roots or residences in North Dakota and only one of the four lives in western North Dakota. 

Here are representative excerpts from Tescher Obrigewitch’s column:

“Medora is definitely not historic anymore. The powers that be have totally removed or rebuilt anything that was historic…

…“In this little town, they have installed roundabouts and made major changes to streets and walkways. They have built hotels, torn down historic places that were there before TR ever thought about coming west…

“…I had to go by the old Custer Trail Ranch, which they tore down. I just closed my eyes. It hurt my heart.

“I believe in preserving history so future generations understand how people once lived.

“…but this ‘progress’ thing has gotten out of hand.”

The columnist’s candor and hurt won’t stop or alter the character of the mega-change under way in Medora. That horse is out of the barn, and (as she says) the “powers that be,” local and otherwise, are too deeply invested to rein it in. 

All of which raises questions: Does “progress” mean more hype than history? More tacky than traditional? More wine and brie than whiskey and beef? Hard to say. But the implicit angst in Tescher Obrigewitch’s lament is: Will the Medora of the future have more in common with P.T. Barnum than with Teddy Roosevelt?

This story was originally produced by North Dakota Monitor, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

After facing costly heating bills this winter, consumers shouldn’t expect relief for the summer months, according to new projections for household utility costs. 

The National Energy Assistance Directors Association projects the average electricity cost to cool homes between June and September will reach $778 this summer. That’s a $61 — or 8.5% — increase from last year and nearly 37% higher than in 2020.

The association, which represents state employees administering federal energy assistance programs, attributes the increase to warmer temperatures and higher electric prices.

“Families are squeezed from both directions,” Mark Wolfe, the association’s executive director, said in a news release. “They are paying more for electricity, and they need more of it to stay safe during increasingly hot summers.”

Projections show a pronounced impact in the South because of its higher temperatures and widespread air conditioning usage. South Atlantic states — from Delaware to Florida —  are expected to see average cooling bills rise by more than $100 between June and September compared with last year. But Midwestern states are expected to see summer costs go up by about $30 per household. 

One in six American households are behind on energy bills, with total utility debt expected to reach approximately $23 billion by the end of the year, the association said. With home energy costs rising by more than double the rate of inflation, the group has urged Congress to appropriate billions more in energy assistance funding.

State lawmakers of both parties are increasingly scrutinizing high electricity prices as most Americans are served by state-regulated utilities. Despite growing outcry, state leaders say they have little ability to provide consumer relief because of broader energy market realities.

The Edison Electric Institute, which represents the nation’s investor-owned electric utilities, has pointed to surging electricity demand, extreme weather, new technologies and widespread electrification as factors leading to increased prices. The organization says its members will invest more than $1.1 trillion in grid improvements and expansion over the next five years.

“We’ve got to build a lot of infrastructure to meet this incredible growing demand that’s going to benefit our economy, benefit our communities, and help the United States lead in the technologies of the future,” EEI Vice Chair Chris Womack said during an April 14 event hosted by Axios. 

A February study commissioned by the organization said electricity prices have remained stable across much of the country but hikes in “a few states and regions” have put upward pressure on national average costs. 

That report attributed regional price hikes to changes in markets, policies and other circumstances beyond the control of utility providers.

“In general, the utilities have managed controllable costs effectively,” it said. 

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans adopted their budget resolution Wednesday night, clearing the way for the party to pass a bill in the coming weeks that will provide tens of billions in additional funding for immigration enforcement. 

The 215-211 party-line vote unlocks the complicated budget reconciliation process that will allow the GOP to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term in office. California independent Rep. Kevin Kiley, formerly a Republican, voted “present.”

The budget resolution was approved by the Senate earlier this month and does not need Trump’s signature.

When combined with a separate Senate-passed bill, which Speaker Mike Johnson has so far refused to put on the House floor for a vote, the two measures are expected to eventually end the shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security that began in mid-February. 

House Budget Committee ranking member Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., said during floor debate that lawmakers should place constraints on immigration agents after they shot and killed two U.S. citizens earlier this year in Minneapolis. 

“I think the vast majority of the American people agree with me that we need to have a secure border, but that we cannot have any agency of our government carrying out killings on our streets,” he said. 

Republicans removed ICE and Border Patrol funding from the annual DHS appropriations bill after negotiators were unable to broker agreement with Democrats to place new guardrails on immigration activities.

Placing funding for those two agencies in a reconciliation bill allows Republicans to move the measure through the Senate without securing 60 votes to end debate, which would require bipartisanship. 

Immigration enforcement debated

House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said the shutdown isn’t “just about the inconvenience of long lines at airports.” 

“This is an unprecedented national security and public safety crisis. And this is the moment we take the keys from the kids and we say no more of this nonsense,” he added.  

DHS includes the Coast Guard, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Secret Service and Transportation Security Administration. 

Arrington used his debate time to criticize Democrats for demanding constraints on immigration agents, arguing federal officers shouldn’t have to secure a judicial warrant to enter someone’s home to detain a person in the country without proper documentation.

“There is not a Democrat or Republican former commander-in-chief that would ever find that acceptable,” he said. 

Democrats also called for federal immigration agents to: 

• Wear body cameras.
• Only wear masks to conceal their identities in “extraordinary and unusual circumstances.”
• Not undertake roving patrols.
• Not detain people in certain locations, like houses of worship, schools, or polling places.
• Not engage in racial profiling.
• Not detain or deport American citizens. 

Up to $140 billion

The GOP used the reconciliation process last year to enact its “big, beautiful” law, which included an additional $170 billion for immigration and deportation enforcement. 

The reconciliation bill Republicans hope to approve in the next month can cost up to $140 billion, according to the instructions in the budget resolution. But GOP lawmakers expect the price tag to come in around $70 billion.

The additional funding is significantly higher than the $10 billion allocation for ICE and the $18.3 billion for Customs and Border Protection that Congress was on track to approve earlier this year. About $550 million of the CBP total was for the Border Patrol. 

White House officials have repeatedly urged lawmakers to quickly approve the reconciliation bill that has yet to be released and for House Republicans to clear the Senate-passed DHS appropriations bill for Trump’s signature. 

The Office of Management and Budget sent a memo to lawmakers this week notifying them the administration is running out of money to pay DHS employees during the shutdown. 

“If this funding is exhausted, the Administration will be unable to pay all DHS personnel beginning in May, which will once again unleash havoc on air travel, leave critical law enforcement officers—including our brave Secret Service agents—and the Coast Guard without paychecks, and jeopardize national security,” it says. 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision gutting the federal Voting Rights Act sent Black Democrats in the U.S. House reeling on Wednesday, as they confronted a new reality where Republicans could gerrymander some of them out of office and limit the ability of Black voters to elect candidates in the future.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus vowed to fight the court’s decision. They demanded fresh votes on federal voting rights legislation that has languished for several years and urged voters to turn out in the November election.

But facing a Republican-controlled Congress for at least the rest of the year and a Republican White House for at least the next two-and-a-half years, the prospect of major new voting rights legislation becoming law appears slim in the near term.

“It will pave the way for the greatest reduction in representation for Black and minority voters since the years following Reconstruction,” Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat, said of the court’s decision, referring to the post-Civil War period in the South.

Republicans could ultimately secure up to 19 U.S. House seats nationally directly because of the Supreme Court’s decision, according to a projection by Fair Fight Action, a Georgia-based progressive voting rights group, and the Black Voters Matter Fund, which advocates on behalf of Black voters. 

As of Aug. 4, 2025, Congress included 61 Black members of the House, including two delegates, and five senators, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Racial gerrymander

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because it unnecessarily created a second district where a majority of residents are Black.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act had previously limited states from using maps that dilute the voting power of minority citizens. Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s three liberal justices, wrote in a dissent that the decision would now allow states to dilute the voting power of minority voters without legal consequences.

Republicans welcomed the decision, with many saying race should play no role in redistricting. President Donald Trump, informed about the ruling by reporters and told that it would help Republicans, exclaimed, “I love it.”

Florida lawmakers approved a new map within hours of the opinion. The proposal, offered by Gov. Ron DeSantis earlier this week, seeks to secure four additional House seats for Republicans. DeSantis had invoked the court’s decision, even before it was released, to push lawmakers to pass the new map.

GOP candidates and officials in other states urged state lawmakers to move quickly to redraw maps, even with primary elections approaching. Even if only a small number of states enact fresh gerrymanders this year, the Supreme Court decision will likely trigger another, bigger wave of redistricting over the next two years ahead of the 2028 election.

“The Court rightly acknowledged that the South has made extraordinary progress, and that laws designed for a different era do not reflect the present reality,” Alabama Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall said in a statement.

Rep. Richard Hudson, a North Carolina Republican who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, in a statement said the decision “restores fairness, strengthens confidence in our elections, and ensures every voter is treated equally under the law.”

The Supreme Court in 2019 allowed states to redraw maps for political advantage, ruling that federal courts would no longer adjudicate partisan gerrymandering cases. That previous decision, combined with Wednesday’s opinion, offers states a wide berth to draw maps that limit the voting power of minorities if they’re sold as politically necessary.

Bloody Sunday

Sewell represents a district that includes Selma, where the civil rights activist and future U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., along with other marchers, was beaten by state troopers in 1965 while walking across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in an episode called Bloody Sunday. 

The beatings helped spur Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act later that year — the same law the Supreme Court weakened on Wednesday.

“The court just gave states permission to use partisan gerrymandering as a wholesale excuse to deny Black and minority voters a voice in our democracy,” Sewell said.

In Missouri, the Republican-controlled legislature earlier this year passed a map intended to oust Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat who was Kansas City’s first Black mayor. The state Supreme Court is weighing a legal challenge that could keep the map from taking effect before the November election.

On Wednesday, Cleaver in a statement called the opinion “deeply disrespectful of the generations of African Americans and civil rights advocates who gave their freedom, their blood, and even their lives to make it possible.” 

Obama criticizes ruling

Former President Barack Obama condemned the decision as another example of how a majority of the current Supreme Court seems intent on “abandoning its vital role” in ensuring equal participation in American democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach.

“The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome,” Obama said in a statement. “But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers – not just in the upcoming midterms or in high profile races, but in every election and every level.

Several Democrats said Congress should pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a Democratic-sponsored measure that seeks to restore preclearance — a requirement that states with a history of discrimination obtain federal approval before making voting changes. The Supreme Court effectively halted preclearance in 2013.

The House, under Democratic control, passed the legislation in 2021 but it stalled in the Senate. Democrats could likely pass the bill again if they retake the House in November but would face a likely filibuster again in the Senate. Even if they managed to pass the bill, Trump would be virtually certain to veto it.

Rep. Cleo Fields, a Louisiana Democrat whose district was ruled an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, sought to place the court’s decision in a broader, historical context. 

Looking ahead to midterms

Recalling Louisiana’s Jim Crow past, he said the state used to require individuals to recite the Constitution’s preamble before registering to vote.

“If you tell me I’ve got to jump a certain height, I could probably do that. Tell me I’ve got to run a certain distance, I could probably do that, too. But if you tell me I have to be white to serve in Congress from Louisiana, I can’t do nothing about that — I need some help from my government,” Fields said, adding that’s why Congress needs to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the Supreme Court’s conservative majority “illegitimate” and said the opinion was unacceptable but not unexpected. 

While acknowledging the decision represents a setback, America has an opportunity to mount a comeback in the upcoming election, he said.

Jeffries, who is set to become speaker if Democrats retake the House in November, said one of the chamber’s first actions would be to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

“So we can end the era of voter suppression in America once and for all,” Jeffries said.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report

TACOMA — Washington state health inspectors have tried for months to investigate complaints at the embattled immigrant detention center in Tacoma, to no avail. 

Now the state is taking its frustrations to court, asking a federal judge Tuesday to force the hand of the facility’s operator.

It’s the latest development in the yearslong saga to provide state oversight there. Gov. Bob Ferguson and Attorney General Nick Brown, both Democrats, announced their latest legal action in a press conference outside the Northwest ICE Processing Center, alongside religious leaders and community advocates. 

“The law is clear, yet the owner of this facility, The GEO Group, has continued to obstruct our efforts to ensure they are following state law,” Ferguson said. “The GEO Group is not above the law.”

Ferguson accused the company of “continued obstruction and brazen disregard for state law.”

A GEO spokesperson deferred comment to ICE. The agency didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Officials from the state Department of Health have tried to get in to inspect 10 times since 2023. But The GEO Group, which runs the for-profit detention center, has kept turning them away, the state says.

When they tried last month, GEO told state inspectors they needed to file a request with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Seattle to access the Northwest ICE Processing Center, according to the state. ICE has not responded, according to the state. 

In that case, the state was attempting to look into complaints about drinking water and the facility denying detainees the ability to attend religious services, according to court filings.

They were again turned away when they attempted to inspect April 20, according to the state.

This is despite the state, so far, winning a legal battle with GEO Group over this issue. Last August, a federal appeals court upheld a 2023 state law seeking to pave the way for state health inspections of the private facility, as part of a broader suite of oversight reforms. A lower court ruling had blocked the law in response to a GEO lawsuit.

In February, GEO asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case and pause enforcement of the court’s order as it prepares a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The court denied both of those requests.

The court’s ruling formally took effect early last month. GEO has until mid-June to file with the high court, after receiving an extension. It would then take months for the justices to decide whether to take the case.

The Florida-based GEO Group has argued in recent court filings that any resolution to the case should wait until the Supreme Court can weigh in. 

A hearing on the state’s new motion hasn’t been scheduled, but Brown said he hopes it will be “fairly quickly.”

“Now is the time where action is right,” he said. “Washingtonians are entitled to accountability and transparency in private companies that turn detention into profit, and we understand that that urgency is so acute in this moment.”

Brown called it “not just a legal obligation. It is a moral obligation.”

The detention center has faced scrutiny for years. This includes allegations of medical mistreatment, abuse and neglect, and concerns about water quality and food. 

The Department of Health said it has received more than 3,500 complaints over the past three years about the detention center, which holds detainees before deportation or release back into the United States. The agency has been receiving concerns for years, with no way to investigate them.

Examining drinking water is a top priority, officials have said. Other issues raised in past complaints to the Department of Health include access to medication, sanitation and concerns that seem to stem from crowding, like the number of beds being put into some rooms.

Of the over 3,500 complaints, roughly 1,000 deal with water, food and air quality. For example, detainees have complained about finding burned plastic, metal string, hair, worms and rope in the food served by GEO, according to the state.

Earlier this year, Democrats in the state Legislature considered fining GEO for not allowing health inspectors inside. The law passed in 2023 allows the state to fine the operator for noncompliance.

This story was originally produced by Washington State Standard, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Four conservation organizations claim in a new federal lawsuit the United States Forest Service could be logging and using prescribed burns in one of Montana’s best-known recreational areas without presenting required research that would demonstrate the project isn’t negatively impacting a handful of threatened or endangered species.

Attorneys for the Gallatin Wildlife Association, Alliance for The Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, and Council on Wildlife and Fish say logging and burning on more than 5,600 acres between Hyalite and South Cottonwood canyons, south of Bozeman in the Gallatin Mountains would mean cutting through old-growth forests, building new roads and negatively impact threatened species ranging from Canada lynx to Northern goshawks to whitebark pine trees. It claims U.S. Forest Service officials have overlooked or ignored a handful of federal laws to fast-track the project which the groups say will be highly visible to recreational enthusiasts.

U.S. Forest Service staff have a policy of not commenting on any pending litigation. 

The lawsuit said while the U.S. Forest Service has given notice of the project, many of those details – or lack thereof – make it impossible to understand what will be happening and therefore it’s impossible for scientists and the courts to understand the possible effects of the project. The attorneys claim the Forest Service hasn’t disclosed the number, location or status of whitebark pine throughout the area. 

“In addition, the Forest Service relies on an overbroad and legally unsupported delineation of the wildland urban interface to exempt large areas of lynx habitat standards that prohibit vegetation management projects that degrade snowshoe hare habitat,” the suit said. 

Canada lynx, which are listed by the federal government as “threatened,” rely on the snowshoe hare as a food source. 

The conservation groups claim the Forest Service is using an overly broad definition of wildland-urban interface area to push ahead plans. The court documents accuse the Forest Service of using a law allowing officials to clear brush and trees from near structures as justification for damaging lynx habitat without more public scrutiny. 

The attorneys claim that the Forest Service used a different density than what is required by the Healthy Forests Reforestation Act in order to claim the logging and burning area is an wildland-urban interface area and therefore allowing officials to more aggressively manage wildfire risks because there are structures in the area. 

“Neither the project’s documents nor the Gallatin Community Wildfire Protection Plan identify structures in the project area, population density, groups of homes, shared utilities or other municipal infrastructure,” the lawsuit said. 

They also said that the Forest Service provides no information about large stands of whitebark pine trees.

“Many logging units in the project will be highly visible for visitors and recreationalists to Hyalite Canyon, which is the most visited area of any National Forest in Montana,” the lawsuit said. 

Of the 836 acres of old-growth forest in the project area, attorneys warn that 562 acres will no longer be considered “old growth” after that.

Attorneys said that forest officials have already admitted in the planning documents that “the project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect wildlife, habitat, and a tree species protected by the Endangered Species Act, including Canada lynx, Canada lynx critical habitat, grizzly bears and whitebark pine.”

The suit claims that as many as 3,688 acres of Canada lynx habitat is at risk with the project. 

The conservation groups question why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service didn’t issue a biological opinion on the project, something that is often standard for similar projects. 

The groups said that the National Environmental Policy Act also requires more public involvement so that residents can help guide the project, something the conservation organizations argue didn’t happen in this case. 

“In this case, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedures Act when it did not prepare a site-specific no-jeopardy determination that consider the action and/or the project’s environmental baseline, effects, including from temporary roads and cumulative effects,” the court documents said. 

The groups are asking the federal courts to declare that the logging project violates a number of federal laws and policies, including the National Forest Management Act, the Healthy Forest Reforestation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act.

They are asking the courts to vacate the project’s decision and stop authorities from implementing the 15-year project. The groups are also asking for attorney’s fees. 

“The Gallatin Range is undergoing tremendous recreational impact from the local community,” said Clint Nagel, President of the Gallatin Wildlife Association, one of the groups challenging the move in court. “These landscapes are critical for countless species of wildlife using these drainages as their home and provide connectivity to move freely about within and outside the area. Ignoring that fact will cause serious, irreparable harm to the local ecology as well as ignoring the petition from well over a thousand Montanans who want these areas to be left alone.”

Nearly all charging documents from a high-profile quadruple murder case in Anaconda will be unsealed on May 8, which follows a district court judge’s order and a legal back-and-forth over the public’s right to know.

Michael Brown allegedly killed four Anaconda residents on Aug. 1 at the Owl Bar, according to law enforcement. A week-long manhunt ensued, involving local and state law enforcement, as well as multiple federal agencies.

Brown has been charged with four counts of deliberate homicide.

Records from the case were almost immediately sealed, a rare practice for criminal cases in Montana. A coalition of media organizations filed suit in January, seeking to unseal the records.

That coalition of media comprises The Daily Montanan, Montana Free Press, The Montana Newspaper Association, Montana Broadcasters Association, Lee Enterprises, Inc., which owns and operates five of the state’s largest print newspapers, and the Montana Freedom of Information Coalition.

In February, District Court Judge Jeffrey Dahood denied a motion by the press coalition, which then appealed to the state Supreme Court. 

“The coalition also said the records should be open and that no evidence had been presented to show that disclosure of the records would jeopardize Brown’s right to a fair trial,” a Montana Freedom of Information Coalition press release reads. “It asked the judge to hold a hearing on whether the records should be open.”

A unanimous Montana Supreme Court found that the press coalition had been denied a chance to participate in the arguments about whether to seal the records, saying the media had a right to be heard.

An evidentiary hearing, where the press coalition would have argued why unsealing the documents was in the public’s interest, was scheduled after the state Supreme Court handed down its decision.

But lawyers for the state and Brown “reversed course” this week at a meeting with media attorneys, the Montana Freedom of Information Coalition said in a press release. Documents currently under seal include, “details supporting the charges, information on state evidence in the case, and the mental evaluation of Brown.”

Brown’s mental health evaluation will not be unsealed, but other charging documents will.

“We’re glad the prosecution and defense in the Brown case recognized that the law, the state constitution and legal precedent in Montana demand that, with few exceptions, court documents in criminal cases are open to the public,” Mike Dennison, president of the Montana Freedom of Information Coalition said in a press release. “We also hope this outcome serves as a message to prosecutors, defense counsel and judges across the state that, in Montana, these documents are public documents.”

Editor’s Note: The Daily Montanan is a part of the media coalition to enter the case.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised Wednesday to uphold the Trump administration’s efforts to end temporary legal protections for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. 

The decision could also affect several other lawsuits related to what is known as Temporary Protected Status that are pending in lower courts. The suits challenge the Trump administration’s procedures to terminate country protections, which have sharply raised deportation risks for more than 1 million immigrants. 

So far, the Trump administration has ended TPS destinations for 13 countries, out of 17 that were active at the start of President Donald Trump’s administration.

Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said that federal courts, under the law, cannot review the executive branch’s decision to end or extend a TPS designation.

“They challenge the very kind of foreign policy-laden judgments that are traditionally entrusted to the political branches,” Sauer said of TPS recipients who are suing to remain in the United States. 

But two lawyers, Ahilan Arulanantham, representing Syrians, and Geoffrey Pipoly, representing Haitians, argued that their clients could challenge a lack of proper procedure that then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem took in ending those TPS designations. 

That would include not undertaking a review of country conditions before making a determination, the lawyers said.

Most of the questioning came from the three liberal justices, who grilled Sauer and pressed him on Trump’s racist remarks disparaging Haitians.

The conservative justices, who hold a 6-3 majority, asked Sauer only a handful of questions, and seemed skeptical of Arulanantham and Pipoly’s argument, signaling that they may already agree with the Trump administration’s position that the courts cannot review TPS terminations. 

A decision is not expected until June or early July. Both cases would go back to the lower courts to continue on the merits argument. 

But if the Supreme Court agrees with the Trump administration, then TPS holders from Haiti and Syria could be subject to deportation. 

The effort to end TPS designation is part of President Donald Trump’s broader effort to curtail immigration and strip legal status for people, creating thousands of newly unauthorized immigrants in order to subject them to his mass deportation drive.

How TPS works

TPS is a humanitarian program that Congress created in 1990 to allow for temporary protections for nationals who hail from countries deemed too dangerous to return to due to violence, disasters or other extreme circumstances. 

TPS holders must go through vetting to be approved for work permits and legal protections. Each renewal lasts from six to 12 to 18 months. 

Those determinations are up to the Department of Homeland Security secretary, who typically consults with the State Department to evaluate country conditions and determine if the status needs to be extended. Decisions would depend upon whether conditions are still unsafe for a migrant’s return.

Sauer argued that the courts cannot review that final decision, including procedural ones that lead up to it. 

Arulanantham contended that position is a “double edged sword.” Another administration could easily come in and a new DHS secretary could theoretically use TPS to give legal status to immigrants in the country unlawfully, and that decision would not be subject to review by the courts, Arulanantham said.

The TPS holders before the Supreme Court argue that Noem did not consult with the appropriate agencies, such as the State Department, before deciding to end TPS designation. They say she did not follow proper procedure — but they are not challenging that a decision to terminate a country can be reviewed. 

Arulanantham said with Syria, if Noem had reviewed the State Department’s report, which advises people not to travel to the country because of armed conflict, and still decided against renewing protections, that decision is not reviewable. 

“What is reviewable is whether she actually asks anything and gets any information about country conditions,” he said. 

Sauer said that legal argument was “meritless,” because the TPS “statute does not micromanage the degree of consultation with other agencies.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Arulanantham why a challenge to the review of how a TPS termination is ended would even matter.

“If it’s just kind of a box-checking exercise, I mean, why would Congress permit review of the procedural aspect, when really what everybody cares about much more is the substance?” she asked.

Arulanantham said it’s “because Congress … and the millions of people who live with TPS, have some faith in government, and they believe that if there is consultation, the decisions will be better.”

He said, “Our view is that even if it comes back like a box-checking exercise, people will at least know that somebody talked to somebody else.”

Trump ‘racial animus’ cited

Pipoly argued that the ending of TPS for Haiti was based on racial animosity toward Haitians, pointing to the president’s own words where he referred to the Caribbean island as a “shithole.” 

“The true reason for the termination is the president’s racial animus towards non-white immigrants and bare dislike of Haitians in particular,” he said. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer about those comments from Trump. 

“We have a president saying at one point that Haiti is a ‘filthy, dirty and disgusting s-hole country,’ I’m quoting him, and where he complained that the United States takes people from such countries, instead of people from Norway, Sweden or Denmark,” she said. “I don’t see how that one statement is not a prime example of … showing that a discriminatory purpose may have played a part in this decision.”

Sauer argued that none of those statements “mentions race or relates to race,” and instead the president was referring to “problems like crime, poverty, welfare dependence.”

In the lower court that blocked the Trump administration from ending TPS for Haiti, federal Judge Ana Reyes found that there was racial animosity in the government’s decision to end the humanitarian protections. 

This is not the first time Trump has tried to end TPS for Haiti — he did so in his first administration in 2018, but was blocked by the courts.

Haitian workers in the US

The day before Wednesday’s oral arguments, a handful of Democratic lawmakers gathered with domestic care advocates outside the U.S. Capitol to stress the importance of TPS workers. More than 20,000 Haitians work in healthcare, according to the immigration advocacy group FWD.us.

“At this moment, over 1 million people are at risk of being removed from their homes, separated from their families, having their lives uprooted because of Trump’s cruel and unlawful attempt to terminate their temporary protected status,” Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley said during the Tuesday press conference. 

Pressley said that thousands of TPS holders serve as essential workers, including one recipient from Haiti who took care of the congresswoman’s mother, who died from cancer.

“It was Haitian nurses who prayed over my mother, who sang songs to my mother, who oiled her scalp lovingly and braided her hair,” Pressley said. “Everyone who calls this country home benefits from TPS, and stands to be harmed by this termination.”

Pressley has led the bipartisan push in the House to approve a measure that would extend TPS for Haiti up to three years. 

Ten Republicans, including one independent who caucuses with the GOP, joined Democrats in approving the bill earlier this month. 

While it passed in the House, the legislation would need 60 votes in the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans. Additionally, if Congress managed to pass the bill, it would likely be rejected by Trump. 

“We are demanding the Supreme Court uphold the law, save lives and protect our communities,” Pressley said. “To send vulnerable families to countries like Haiti, Venezuela and Syria that are enduring horrific humanitarian crises is unconscionable, shameful, unlawful and preventable.”

The suspect in the attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday night was prepared for a mass casualty event, prosecutors said in a document filed in federal court early Wednesday.

Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, and three assistants in her office signed a memorandum asking a judge to keep 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen detained as he awaits trial. They said his “actions were premeditated, violent, and calculated to cause death,” and he sought to “express his political opinions through violence.”

“Had the defendant achieved his intended outcome, he would have brought about one of the darkest days in American history,” they wrote. “The defendant traveled across the country with the explicit aim to kill the President of the United States.”

A detention hearing is set for Thursday. Allen is charged with attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump, as well as interstate transportation of a firearm with intent to commit a felony and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.

He faces up to life in prison if convicted of attempting to kill the president. Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet members all safely evacuated the Washington Hilton ballroom.

The document lists a host of weapons, ammunition and other supplies Allen had in his possession at the time of his arrest.

He had a “12-gauge pumpaction shotgun with one spent cartridge in the barrel and eight unfired cartridges in the magazine tube,” the document reads. He carried additional ammunition in a Velcro strapped to his body and in a separate pouch, the prosecutors said. 

He also carried a fully loaded .38 caliber pistol with two additional magazines. 

The document also shows a mirror selfie Allen appears to have taken in his hotel room just before the planned attack. He is fully armed and outfitted in the photo.

The White House Correspondents’ Dinner, dating back more than 100 years, is an annual black-tie event, often attended by the president, that hosts more than 2,000 journalists, administration officials and other guests at the Washington Hilton. 

President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and members of the Cabinet attended Saturday’s dinner, along with many members of Congress. 

Allen, who traveled by train from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., prior to the attack, sent a note just prior to attempting to rush the Capital Hilton ballroom, brandishing a gun. 

He did not name Trump but said, “Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest.”

Prosecutors argued his intent was to inflict mass harm and disrupt the government.

“Had the defendant successfully made it into the ballroom, he not only could have killed or injured dozens of people, but he could have destabilized the entire federal government, given the number of high-ranking government officials present,” the Department of Justice said. “The defendant sought to express his political opinions through violence. The Court should consider the identities of the defendant’s intended victims and the significant roles they play in governing this country to assess the nature of the charged offenses.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Reserve was one step closer to the job Wednesday after North Carolina Republican U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis cast the deciding vote to advance Kevin Warsh’s nomination to the full Senate.

Lawmakers on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs voted 13-11 along party lines to move Warsh to the next step.

The potential turnover at the top of the Fed, which sets monetary policy, comes as Americans see higher costs hit their pocketbooks, particularly soaring prices at the gas pump, as the U.S.-Iran conflict disrupts worldwide energy supplies.

Tillis had withheld his support until the Trump administration announced Friday it would drop what the senator described as a “bogus” investigation of current Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

“It’s no secret that the reason that Mr. Warsh’s nomination could have been held up is because of my concern with the investigation. I want to thank the Department of Justice for the assurances that they gave me,” Tillis, R-N.C., said following the panel’s brief morning session that lasted just under 15 minutes.

“The fact of the matter is, this was based on two minutes of testimony. It was not criminal,” Tillis said of the DOJ’s probe into Powell’s June 2025 testimony to Congress on a major $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed’s Washington, D.C., headquarters.

The committee vote comes after Trump’s sustained verbal attacks on Powell over several months, including numerous public threats to fire the Fed leader if he did not agree to lower interest rates. `

A federal judge last month blocked the administration’s subpoenas to probe the Fed and Powell, citing “a mountain of evidence” that Trump was using the investigation to force Powell’s hand.

The Fed was scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to deliver its latest decision on interest rates, possibly the last under Powell, whose term expires May 15.

Inflation, affordability

The committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, said the vote brings Trump “one step closer to completing his illegal attempt to seize control of the Fed and to artificially juice the economy.” 

Inflation and affordability are emerging as major issues ahead of the 2026 midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. 

Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., said his constituents in Georgia and beyond “deserve to know that the Fed is on their side, maximizing their chances to keep a good paying job and keeping their lives affordable, not on the side of the president’s poll numbers or his political concerns as we approach the midterm.”

“Fed independence is not theoretical. It matters to the everyday lives of working families,” Warnock said.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken between April 24-27, 61% of Americans think the U.S. economy is on the wrong track. 

When asked about the costs and benefits of the war in Iran, only a quarter of respondents said they agreed the U.S. military operation was worth it, according to the Ipsos poll.

Americans have watched fuel prices climb in March and April after Iran retaliated against the U.S.-Israeli attacks by choking off the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime passageway where, prior to the war, one-fifth of the world’s petroleum passed.

Gas prices climb

The average price across the U.S. for a gallon of regular gas reached $4.23 Wednesday, not only the highest price point since the U.S. launched operations in Iran on Feb. 28, but also the highest since July 2022, according to GasBuddy.  

Prior to the war, a gallon of regular hadn’t topped $3 all year.

A return to normal, free flow in the strait — which was about 140 vessels per day pre-war — appears out of reach at the moment, as Trump announced last weekend his negotiators pulled back again on attending talks in Islamabad.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth sidestepped a question Wednesday regarding how much longer the war might last, asked by Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., before the House Armed Services Committee.

During the same hearing however, the Pentagon’s Jules Hurst III, acting undersecretary of war who oversees finances, did reveal the war had so far cost the U.S. $25 billion.

While the Fed’s inflation target is 2%, data released at the beginning of April showed prices for all items rose 3.3% over a year ago. The jump was largely driven by a 21% spike in fuel prices from February to March.

The Fed’s so-called “dual mandate” is to maximize employment and stabilize prices. The Fed primarily loosens or tightens the economy by adjusting interest rates — lowering them if the economy lags and inflation is too low, and raising them when inflation becomes too high.

Lisa Cook firing

Warren and Warnock also noted Trump’s ousting in August of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, appointed to the board by former President Joe Biden. The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing whether Trump exceeded his authority in firing Cook.

Warnock said he was dissatisfied with Warsh’s written responses to additional questions sent after his April 21 nomination hearing before the committee.

“I asked, quote: ‘If President Trump, or any future president, attempts to unlawfully fire you without cause, would you leave the Federal Reserve?’ His response, quote: ‘I will not answer hypothetical questions of this nature,’” Warnock recounted.

“Well, this isn’t a hypothetical question. In fact, the president attempted to fire Governor Cook this in the past year, and the president has repeatedly mused about firing Chair Powell because he won’t bend to his interest rate demands — doing so as recently as two weeks ago,” Warnock said, referring to Trump’s comments during an April 15 Fox Business interview. 

Asked Wednesday afternoon if he thinks Warsh will persuade the Fed’s board of governors to lower interest rates, Trump told reporters, “They should because it’s a good time to lower them. We’re the most prime country anywhere in the world.”

Powell also faced questions Wednesday afternoon.

When asked whether he expects Warsh will remain independent of Trump, Powell said, “He testified very strongly to that effect in his hearing, and I’ll take him at his word.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

Campaign finance activist Conner Edwards’ quixotic quest to recall Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson from office was intended to prod the governor into filling two vacant seats on the state’s Public Disclosure Commission. 

It worked.

Late Friday, Ferguson appointed Teebah Alsaleh of Seattle, a lawyer for Microsoft, to the commission. Her selection came a week after the governor installed Matt Segal, a founding partner at Pacifica Law Group and former King County Superior Court judge, to the other opening. The first meeting for the two new commissioners will be May 28.

With that, Edwards said he would end his pursuit of a recall.

“While I am disappointed that it took the drastic step of filing recall paperwork to elevate this to Governor Ferguson’s attention, the important thing is that the problem has now been solved,” said Edwards in an email Friday evening. 

“Teebah Alsaleh seems like an excellent pick to serve on the PDC and I look forward to hearing her perspective on the many issues now facing the PDC,” said Edwards, a prodigious filer of complaints of alleged violations of campaign finance rules.

Edwards filed his recall petition April 1, contending Ferguson’s failure to fill the openings within a timeline prescribed in state law amounted to misfeasance and a violation of his oath of office.

Those vacancies threatened to impede the panel’s effectiveness in enforcing state campaign finance laws in the upcoming election season, he said. With only three of its allotted five members, all had to be present for the quorum required to conduct hearings and decide cases.

Brionna Aho, Ferguson’s communications director, did not reply Monday to emailed requests for comment on the recall ending. Ferguson has also been silent on the effort to oust him.

In a legal filing Friday, Ferguson did respond to the now-moot petition, arguing that the statute saying the governor shall appoint new commissioners within 30 days is simply a “procedural guide.”

“To require the Governor to appoint a new member to the Commission within 30 days could even lead to adverse consequences by forcing the Governor to rush to appoint a new member without adequate vetting and investigation,” the response continued.

Grumbling over Ferguson’s picks

Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, called into question Monday whether Ferguson’s two appointments will meet the commission’s requirement to have no more than three members from the same political party. None of the three current commissioners is associated with the minority party, he contends.

Segal, whose firm has served as Ferguson’s private counsel, fills the seat vacated by Allen Hayward in January 2025. Hayward was the longtime counsel for the House Republican Caucus. 

Alsaleh will assume the seat held by Commissioner Nancy Isserlis, who left last August. 

Alsaleh made $50 contributions to Sahar Fathi’s campaign for Seattle City Council in 2012 and Democrat Pramila Jayapal’s campaign for state Senate in 2014, commission records show. Fathi is now one of Ferguson’s top advisers and Jayapal is a Democratic leader in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Clearly neither of these people identify with the minority party,” Schoesler said. “If it is not a violation of the law, it is a violation of the spirit of the law.”

He noted that the Senate Republican Caucus suggested the governor consider Jim Honeyford, a retired state senator from Sunnyside, for one of the open seats.

Neither Segal nor Alsaleh responded to requests for comment.

In a commission press release, Segal said that he is looking forward to serving as a fair and neutral voice, and prioritizing education and guidance for filers.

“Now more than ever it’s important that we act with transparency and that we get it right when it comes to campaigns and elections,” Segal said. 

Aho last week, and again Monday, offered some insight into the process that preceded the selections.

“Our office has handled hundreds of appointments, and we look for the same thing every time: Individuals who are smart, qualified, and willing to sacrifice their time for the people of our state,” she wrote in an email.

This story was originally produced by Washington State Standard, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Transparent Election Initiative announced this week that former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg has endorsed the “Montana Plan” which seeks to keep corporate money out of politics through a ballot measure.

Buttigieg will come to Butte for a town hall on May 17, the release from the Transparent Election Initiative said. The event will start at 1 p.m. and the location will be announced later, the release said.

Initiative I-194 needs 30,000 signatures by June 19 to be on the November ballot. It started as a state Constitutional initiative, but now is a statutory initiative, which would change Montana state law – not the Constitution.

The initiative would create a new law to prohibit corporations, which are known in law as “artificial persons,” from spending money on political candidates or ballot issues in the state. It’s a direct challenge to the federal Citizens United ruling, a case where the U.S. Supreme Court said the power to spend money in elections is tantamount to free speech.

“Montana has a history, going back to the days of the Copper Kings, of dealing with and standing up to concentrated power and wealth, distorting democracy, and the Montana Plan is a way to change all of that under our Constitution and under the legal system that already exists, to change the trajectory of politics by making sure that there isn’t that kind of corporate spending,” Buttigieg said in a video accompanying the release. “The basic principle is simple, that no corporation or any other kind of outside group should be able to distort decision making with massive wealth and dark money.”

Butte was chosen intentionally for the event, harkening to its important place in the country’s labor movement and what can happen when power, money, and politics become deeply intermixed.

“There is no more fitting place than Butte to have this conversation,” Jeff Mangan, former Montana Commissioner of Political Practices and founder of the Transparent Election Initiative said in a release. “Montanans know what happens when economic power becomes political power. From the Copper Kings to the Anaconda Company, Butte has lived through what it means when elections answer to corporations instead of citizens.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office on Monday invoked an upcoming landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the role of race in drawing congressional districts to justify the Republican’s proposed gerrymander.

“The use of race in redistricting should never happen,” the governor’s general counsel, David Axelman, wrote in a memo unveiling a map that aims to hand Republicans four additional U.S. House seats in Florida.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court delivered an opinion sharply weakening a major portion of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Even before the decision, Republicans and Democrats across the country were scrambling to get ahead of the court’s anticipated ruling. 

The rush comes even as state legislative sessions wind down and the window to redraw maps rapidly closes ahead of the midterm elections in November — likely pushing most redistricting battles into the 2028 election cycle.

The opinion in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, could reverberate for decades. The court’s conservative majority significantly curtailed the consideration of race when drawing legislative maps. 

Until now, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has limited states from using maps that dilute the voting power of minority citizens.

“If the Supreme Court does decide to gut or significantly weaken Section 2 of the VRA, we’re very concerned that it would give, basically, the green light to states to racially gerrymander,” Michael McNulty, policy director at Issue One, a group focused on protecting American democracy, said in an interview ahead of the decision.

Republicans could ultimately secure up to 19 U.S. House seats nationally directly because of the Supreme Court’s decision, according to a projection by Fair Fight Action, a Georgia-based progressive voting rights group, and the Black Voters Matter Fund, which advocates on behalf of Black voters. At the state level, the groups have projected that Republicans could gain up to 200 state legislative seats across the South. 

“It is hard to overstate what an earthquake this will be for American politics,” Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA School of Law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, wrote in a blog post following the opinion’s release on Wednesday.

Louisiana case

A group of white voters challenged Louisiana’s congressional map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander after the state in 2024 created a second district where a majority of voters are Black. 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative justices agreed, ruling 6-3 that the map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because the state didn’t need to create a second majority-minority district.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “none of the historical evidence presented by plaintiffs came close to showing an objective likelihood that the State’s challenged map was the result of intentional racial discrimination.”

Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s three liberal justices, wrote in a dissent that the Supreme Court has “had its sights set” on the Voting Rights Act for more than a decade.

“Under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power,” Kagan wrote.

Following the opinion, Republican-led legislatures across the South are expected to move to break apart Democratic districts where a majority of residents are Black or from other minority groups. 

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, called on the state legislature to reconvene and redraw the state’s congressional districts to create another Republican-held seat in Memphis. Blackburn, who is running for governor, said an additional seat is essential to cement President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Mississippi Republican Gov. Tate Reeves last week announced a special session to redraw the state’s Supreme Court districts, to begin 21 days after the court releases its decision.

“It is a decision that could (and in my view should) forever change the way we draw electoral maps,” Reeves said in a statement announcing the session.

Although the Supreme Court case centered on Louisiana, state officials are likely out of time to adopt a new map for this year’s election. The primary election is set for May 16.

Still, Louisiana will be free to pursue redistricting next year.

U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, Sr., a Democrat who represents one of the state’s two majority-minority districts, said the court’s decision was a “devastating blow” to the promise of equal representation.

“This ruling is about far more than lines on a map — it’s about whether Black Louisianians will have a meaningful opportunity to make their voices heard,” Carter said in a statement.

The redistricting wars of 2026

As of 2024, roughly a third of U.S. House seats represented majority-minority districts — 122 held by Democrats and 26 held by Republicans, according to estimates by Ballotpedia. Texas and California account for nearly half of all the districts.

Seven states have already taken the extraordinary step of redrawing their maps this year after President Donald Trump urged Republicans to draw lines that maximize partisan advantage ahead of the midterms. Maps are typically redrawn every 10 years after the census.

Texas and California struck first, followed by Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Utah. Virginia voters last week approved a redraw, and Florida lawmakers approved a new map Wednesday. 

All told, Republicans may emerge from the redistricting war with a small net advantage of a handful of seats if the Florida plan is enacted and the other maps are upheld.

The calendar will prove a major obstacle to additional gerrymanders this year. Primary elections have already been held in some southern states and ballots have been distributed in others. 

Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas have already held primaries, while ballots have been distributed in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. 

But after November the clock resets, giving states more than a year to pursue further changes to their maps before the 2028 election.

“We are much more concerned about the impact on 2028 and beyond that that would have, letting these politicians basically just pick their voters instead of the voters picking them,” McNulty said.

John R. Lewis bill

As Democrats look ahead to Callais’ likely fallout in the coming years, they have begun urgently calling for action in Congress and at the state level. They also say the decision emphasizes the stakes of this year’s elections.

“Today is a devastating day for democracy and a wake-up call for all those who seek to protect it,” Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, said in a statement.

Democrats in Congress have repeatedly offered the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Named after the civil rights activist and Georgia congressman who died in 2020, the legislation aims to strengthen Section 2 and other elements of the current Voting Rights Act, though it’s unclear whether the bill would be constitutional under the Callais decision.

The U.S. House, under Democratic control, passed the legislation in 2021 but it was filibustered in the Senate. Some lawmakers are speaking about the measure again, and Democrats may take control of Congress in November’s elections—though they would still face President Donald Trump in the White House. 

“We can and must revive the Voting Rights Act,” Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat and the ranking member of the House Administration Subcommittee on Elections, said at a shadow hearing on voting rights on Monday.

For their part, Republicans hailed the Supreme Court decision as long overdue.

U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson, a North Carolina Republican who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, in a statement said “activists” for too long had manipulated the redistricting process to achieve political outcomes, dividing Americans in the process.

“The Supreme Court made clear that our elections should be decided by voters, not engineered through unconstitutional mandates,” Hudson said.

Voting Rights Act over the years

Over more than a decade, the Supreme Court has narrowed the potency of the Voting Rights Act, a 1965 law banning racial discrimination in voting that came as Congress battled Jim Crow laws in southern states. 

The measure was intended to help enforce the U.S. Constitution’s 14th and 15th amendments, which guarantee equal protection under the law and prohibit denying the right to vote on the basis of race.

In 2013, the court effectively halted preclearance — the requirement that some states and local governments with a history of discrimination obtain federal permission before changing their voting practices. At the time of the decision, most southern states and a handful of others were subject to preclearance.

The Supreme Court in 2019 ruled that federal courts cannot review allegations of partisan gerrymandering. The decision cleared the way for state lawmakers to gerrymander their maps for political advantage without fear they would be second-guessed by federal judges. 

The opinion helped empower a wave of gerrymanders after the 2020 census and set the stage for this year’s mid-decade redistricting.

Turning to the legislatures

Facing a bleak federal landscape, some voting rights advocates are increasingly turning to state legislatures. The Supreme Court decision undercutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act will likely intensify efforts to advance state-level legislation.

“Because political participation is inherently local, it is imperative to press for protections at the ground level,” Todd Cox, associate director counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, a racial justice legal organization, said at the shadow hearing.

Some Democratic state lawmakers already introduced measures in anticipation of an unfavorable Supreme Court decision.

The Illinois House last week approved a state constitutional amendment that would require districts to be drawn “to ensure that no citizen is denied an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of his or her choice on account of race.”

The Illinois amendment would also require, where practical, the creation of racial coalition or influence districts — terms that refer to districts where racial minorities together constitute a majority of residents. The measure, which must also pass the state Senate before going to voters, was a pre-response to the Callais opinion.

“This will ensure that Illinois will always recognize the fundamental principle that a democracy of the people, by the people and for the people must include all the people,” Illinois Democratic House Speaker Emanuel Welch told reporters after the amendment advanced.

Illinois Republicans have cast the amendment as a Democratic power grab. The state has some of the most gerrymandered maps in the nation, Illinois House Minority Leader Tony McCombie, a Republican, said in a statement. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project has given Illinois’ maps an overall “F” grade.

“Let’s be clear: this has nothing to do with strengthening democracy,” McCombie said. “It’s about locking in one-party control at any cost.”

Invasive northern pike have wreaked havoc in Southcentral Alaska rivers and lakes. Introduced illegally in the 1950s, they have been devouring juvenile salmon and other native species.

Now a University of Alaska Fairbanks study warns that matters could get even worse.

As temperatures rise in waterways, invasive pike eat more, said the study, published in the journal Biological Invasions. And as temperatures continue to rise, that trend will continue, the study said. Based on expected temperature trends, invasive northern pike will eat 6% to 12% more by the end of the century, the study said.

“We expect there will be significant warming in the future, and the amount of fish that pike consume is going to increase with it,” Benjamin Rich, who led the study while earning a master’s degree at UAF’s College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, said in a statement released by the university.

The UAF study found that over the past decade, northern pike of all age classes ate more as waters warmed. The increase was most dramatic in year-old pike, which upped their intake by about 63% over the period.

The study site was the Deshka River, a Matanuska-Susitna Borough waterway that is an important feeder to Cook Inlet and commercial fisheries there. The 44-mile river, a tributary of the Susitna River, is also a cherished destination for Southcentral Alaska sport anglers.

It is famous for its abundance of salmon — or it has been. Salmon in the Deshka is a lot less abundant now than in the past.

The decline is a decades-long problem that affects king salmon in particular. State and federal biologists have cited numerous reasons for  the decline.

The presence of invasive pike is one of them; pike have eaten a lot of juvenile king salmon, also known as Chinook, and coho salmon, also known as silver salmon.

Heat stress is also among the myriad causes of declines. The Deshka is particularly vulnerable to heat. It is in a flat area and not glacier-fed, and it is known to be one of the warmest river systems in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.

It is the subject of ongoing temperature monitoring and studies by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the conservation group Cook Inletkeeper and others.

In 2019, a record-hot year in Alaska, waters in the Deshka were particularly warm — exceeding 81 degrees Fahrenheit that July, according to readings by Cook Inletkeeper.

Warmer temperatures, along with speeding pike metabolism and spurring more food consumption, appear to be sharpening the northern pikes’ predation skills, said Erik Schoen, a UAF fisheries biologist and a study co-author.

Fish, which are cold-blooded animals, have varying physiological responses to heat, Schoen said. Compared to salmon, which get sluggish in warm temperatures, northern pike thrive and become speedier swimmers, he said.

“If it keeps getting warmer, they get much better at catching salmon,” he said. “They’re amazing ambush predators.”

Deshka pike are actually eating less salmon than they did in past years, analysis of stomach content shows. But that is not because they are turning away from salmon; rather, it is evidence of salmon declines in the river.

The abundance of adult king salmon in the Deshka dropped by 42% over the past decade. At about the same time, the biomass of juvenile salmon eaten by northern pike decreased by 30% to 74%, depending on age class.

Do not expect the pike to go away if they deplete all the salmon, warned Schoen, who grew up in Anchorage and spent a lot of time fishing in the Deshka.

Rather, they will turn to other fish, as they appear to have done in the Deshka, such as whitefish and rainbow trout. If they can’t eat fish, they eat flies, he said. Northern pike are even known to eat birds, such as eagle chicks and ducklings, small mammals like voles and shrews — and, on occasion, each other.

“Once they wipe out the salmon, the pike don’t die off because they run out of food,” Schoen said.

Northern pike are native to the Interior and northern parts of Alaska, but they are not part of the natural ecosystem south of the Alaska Range. The first introduction was about seven decades ago, prior to statehood, and traced to the Bulchitna Lake, which is part of the Susitna River drainage. Through the following years, flooding and reproduction spread the fish to new places. And they have proved persistent, showing up not just around the Matanuska-Susitna Borough but also in Anchorage and, to biologists’ dismay, on the Kenai Peninsula.

As entrenched as the pike infestation is in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the salmon picture there is not beyond hope, Schoen said.

Pike prefer areas with slow-moving waters and lots of plants. That means areas with swift-flowing waters and gravelly banks are much less likely to be invaded by pike, and there are several such pike-resistant spots in the borough.

Even though it can’t get rid of all the pike, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has had some success suppressing the invaders in certain important Matanuska-Susitna spots, Schoen said.

One is Alexander Creek, a 40-mile waterway that was one of the most important Northern Cook Inlet freshwater sites for king and silver salmon.

A multiyear program launched by the department resulted in removal of more than 25,000 Northern pike from Alexander Creek by 2021, according to a department report. Salmon numbers have improved. But pike remain a persistent problem, and suppression should continue, the report concluded.

Through its activities as part of the Alaska Invasive Species Partnership, a multiagency organization, the department is pursuing a long-term plan to control northern pike.

This story was originally produced by Alaska Beacon, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

SEATTLE — Washington state on Monday sued Albertsons over allegations it has been overcharging customers for years via buy one, get one free offers. 

Attorney General Nick Brown claims Albertsons, which also runs Safeway and Haggen stores, overcharged customers on at least 3.1 million transactions under this scheme between October 2019 and May 2024, bringing in at least $19.6 million from those purchases. 

The lawsuit, filed in King County Superior Court, says Albertsons artificially raises the prices of items like bread, produce and olive oil in the weeks or months before a buy one, get one, or BOGO, offer. It then lowers the prices within a month of the promotion. 

The complaint argues customers pay a premium on the first product, which covers a portion of the cost of the “free” one. The lawsuit comes after a monthslong investigation, Brown said.

“Washington consumers are already burdened by affordability issues, and we’re not going to stand by and let them get fleeced by deceptive marketing,” Brown said in a press conference.

Albertsons said in a statement that the company is aware of the lawsuit.

“We engaged in good‑faith discussions with the Attorney General’s Office and strongly disagree with its claims, which are based on flawed analysis and data errors that we identified and raised,” the company said.

“Albertsons Companies is committed to complying with the law and to offering customers clear value through our promotions,” the statement continued. “As this is pending litigation, we will address the matter through the legal process and cannot comment further.”

In 2021, the lawsuit says, Oroweat Premium Italian Bread at an Albertsons in Tacoma cost $3.69. But the store raised the price to $4.29, about 16%, around the time of a BOGO offer on the bread, according to the lawsuit. After the deal passed, it dropped the price to $4.17. 

Other increases included 50% for mini watermelon at Safeway in Colville, 57% for olive oil at a Gig Harbor Albertsons and 84% for pimiento-stuffed olives at an Albertsons in Renton.

This isn’t the first time this issue has been called out. 

In Oregon, Albertsons paid $107 million to settle a 2016 class-action lawsuit over similar allegations. In that case, eligible customers could each receive up to $200.

And in 2024, Albertsons settled with Washington consumers who brought their own lawsuit against the company. The terms of the settlement weren’t disclosed.

The state’s lawsuit alleges Albertsons is violating safeguards in the state’s Consumer Protection Act against unfair and deceptive practices. 

Brown is asking a judge to order Albertsons to end its buy one, get one practices, provide restitution to customers and pay civil penalties with interest.

Albertsons, based in Boise, Idaho, has 225 stores in Washington, according to the attorney general’s office. 

Washington has previously gone to court with the grocery giant to block its merger with Kroger out of anti-competitive concerns. In response to the lawsuit filed by then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson, a King County judge ruled the merger violated state consumer protection laws and halted it. A federal judge similarly blocked it, after the Federal Trade Commission sued. 

Brown pointed out this new lawsuit comes as the Trump administration has “gutted” federal consumer protection efforts. And grocery prices are on the rise. 

“This is something that everyone is facing, something that I face, trying to decide what products and food to buy for your family feels more important than ever before,” he said.

State lawmakers this year proposed legislation to temporarily ban electronic pricing systems at retailers and prohibit surveillance or algorithmic surge pricing. The bill didn’t pass the Legislature, but its sponsor has said she plans to try again in 2027.

Brown said his office has been “paying a lot of attention” to this issue, and eyeing whether companies are tailoring prices to customers based on personal data.

This story was originally produced by Washington State Standard, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

This story was originally published by The Trace, a nonprofit newsroom covering gun violence in America.

On May 18, 2018, a teenager at Santa Fe High School in Texas walked into the school armed with his father’s guns and opened fire, killing eight students and two teachers. Evidence later showed the teen had been experiencing a severe and spiraling mental health crisis leading up to the attack.

But Texas had no mechanism that would have allowed law enforcement or anyone else to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from the home. Last year, the state made sure it never would: Lawmakers banned extreme risk protection orders, which allow police and families to ask judges to temporarily remove guns from dangerous people.

Christina Delgado, a Santa Fe resident who became a gun reform advocate after the shooting, told state lawmakers the attack might have been prevented with the kind of legal remedy the bill sought to ban. “Had timely and appropriate intervention and support been provided to that family, a different outcome may have been achieved,” she told a Texas Senate committee considering the bill.

They still passed the measure. And Texas is not alone. A growing number of states are outlawing the orders meant to quickly — and temporarily — take guns from people at imminent risk of hurting themselves or others.

ERPO laws, also known as red flag laws, once enjoyed support from across the political spectrum, including from President Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association, which in 2018 advocated for federal funding to help states implement the measures. Now, six states have prohibited enforcing the orders — and in some cases, prescribed fines or criminal charges for officials who try. Three other states are considering similar bans in 2026.

Researchers and advocates warn the trend could leave courts, police and families navigating a patchwork of conflicting rules. It could also undermine a tool widely credited with preventing suicides, which make up the majority of U.S. gun deaths.

“We’re very concerned about the trajectory of anti-ERPO laws, both in the rise in the number of states passing these laws and the escalations within the laws themselves,” said Emily Walsh, a law and policy adviser at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

From symbolic to punitive

ERPOs grew in popularity after the 2018 Parkland, Florida, school shooting, and 22 states now allow courts to issue them. Oklahoma became the first state to ban the orders in 2020. The measure prohibits cities and counties from enacting ERPOs or accepting funding to carry them out. West Virginia and Tennessee followed. These bans lacked significant penalties for violations and were largely symbolic, as no localities in these states had ever enacted ERPOs.

But a newer wave of legislation takes a more aggressive approach. Bans passed by Montana and Texas in 2025 and by Wyoming in 2026 impose consequences on officials who enforce ERPOs, including those issued by other states. In Montana, the state can fine local governments up to $10,000 per violation. In Wyoming, running afoul of the ban can earn someone as much as a year in prison, a $2,000 fine, or both. Texas’ ban goes furthest: It makes enforcing or serving an ERPO a felony punishable by up to two years in prison.

Nicole Golden, a Texas gun reform advocate, said the bans mirror other policy fights she has watched unfold. She fears Texas’ ban is inspiring other states to adopt similar proposals. “This is just the way this goes,” she said. “Sometimes Texas is the petri dish for these really extreme tactics.”

The proposed ERPO bans pending in at least three other statehouses suggest the trend is accelerating. Proposals in Iowa and Missouri prescribe $50,000 fines for violations. South Carolina’s bill, dubbed the Ban Against Red Flag Gun Confiscation Act, would make enforcement a felony. The sponsors of those measures did not respond to requests for comment.

Due process protections

While ERPOs once enjoyed bipartisan support as a way to keep guns from people in crisis without broadly restricting gun access, over time, positions have polarized. Today, gun rights advocates and Republicans argue that banning ERPOs protects gun owners from firearm confiscation without due process.

But ERPO laws do include protections. Orders require approval by a judge, sworn evidence, and a prompt court hearing. People subject to an order receive notice, can contest the allegations, and can typically ask a judge to end the order early. Most laws also guarantee the return of firearms when an order expires. To prevent abuse, many states punish people who lie in their petition or misuse the process.

Still, opponents say those safeguards fall short. “This is a situation where a law-abiding Texan, based on a random report or complaint, can be deprived of their constitutional rights without due process,” Texas State Sen. Bryan Hughes, a Republican who sponsored the state’s ban, told colleagues during a committee hearing last year.

At the same hearing, Kyle Rittenhouse, a representative of a group called Texas Gun Rights, also testified in support of the ban. Rittenhouse — wearing a pin in the shape of an assault-style rifle on his lapel — portrayed ERPOs as a means to “weaponize” false accusations.

In 2020, during racial justice protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two. A jury acquitted him of homicide, but he still faces lawsuits for negligence and wrongful death brought by the man he wounded and the family of 26-year-old Anthony Huber, one of the two men Rittenhouse killed.

Cross-border disputes

Five of the six states that ban ERPOs border at least one state that allows them, increasing the chances of cross-border disputes over how those orders are enforced.

For example, if a New Mexico court issues an ERPO against a person who lives in or moves next door to Texas, the police there could face felony charges for attempting to enforce it. “Maybe now they’re here in Texas accessing firearms. Maybe they’re going to take that gun back and hurt someone. Maybe they’re going to try to take their own life,” said Golden, the Texas Gun Sense director. “Police can’t help them; no one can help them.”

The order would prevent the person from buying a gun if they underwent a background check. But Texas, like the other anti-ERPO states, does not require background checks on all gun sales.

In most states with ERPOs, there are two main types: emergency and final orders. Judges can issue emergency orders without both parties being present, but they last just days or weeks before a hearing on a final order is required. Final orders usually last a year.

Walsh, the Johns Hopkins expert, said people in states that allow ERPOs may be unable to obtain a final order against someone in a state that bans them because authorities cannot serve the subject with the legally required notice.

Suicides

ERPOs are often passed in response to mass shootings, as a way to prevent future tragedies. Some small studies and case reviews suggest the orders have thwarted mass violence. But a growing body of research shows the orders are most effective at reducing gun suicide.

Every state that bans ERPOs had a gun suicide rate higher than the national average in 2024, according to the latest available data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Wyoming had the highest rate in the country.

In Texas, Ayaan Moledina, a 15-year-old student advocate, called on lawmakers to block the ban and to consider enacting an ERPO law instead. He told the committee he had attempted to take his own life on multiple occasions.

“I am alive today because I did not have access to a firearm,” Moledina said. “I firmly believe that if I had been able to use a gun, I would not be sitting here before you today.”

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

A new annual report which focuses on sexual harassment by state and federal government leaders highlights efforts made by Montana, which comes in the midst of new allegations about a longtime Democratic legislator from Box Elder. 

The annual report, produced by the National Women’s Defense League, is broken into two separate documents, and details credible allegations of sexual abuse and harassment of state and federal officials. It has been produced since 2013 and it keeps a running tally of lawmakers who have been accused, as well as documenting what states are doing to prevent harassment.

The report was written prior to new allegations against state Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy, who is a current member of the Montana Senate and had been running for the U.S. House of Representatives. 

Two weeks ago, new allegations were made by a former legislative staffer who said he showed her nude pictures of himself, according to Lee Enterprises’ Seaborn Larson. Those new allegations are different from previously reported incidents.

Windy Boy dropped his bid to run for Congress, but remains an active member of the Montana Legislature, Senate officials said Tuesday. Windy Boy was running as a Democrat in the race for Montana’s Second Congressional District which is currently held by incumbent Republican Rep. Troy Downing. Windy Boy’s state Senate term expires in 2028. 

The Daily Montanan reached out to Windy Boy for comment, but received no response.

Lawmakers and Democratic party leaders urged Windy Boy to drop out of the federal race. Windy Boy dropped out on April 16, citing health reasons.

“I want it to be clear to all Montanans: Democrat or not, Windy Boy should be investigated and held accountable, as should anyone else with allegations of this nature,” said Montana Democratic Party Chairwoman Shannon O’Brien. 

The 2026 report highlights Montana as one of five states that took positive efforts to combat the problem of harassment by officials.The four other states praised for positive action taken were Colorado, Iowa, Ohio and Washington.

“These numbers reflect the prevalence of harassment in government, but not the extent of it,” the report’s executive summary said. “The National Women’s Defense League tracks only cases that become public through media reporting, court filings or official disclosures. Countless others remain hidden – constrained by retaliation, legal threats, confidential settlements and internal systems designed to protect institutions rather than survivors.”

In total the report highlights that 93% of those lawmakers accused are male, but the difference in political party is nearly equal, with 52% of those named in the report being Republican and 48% were Democrats.

The number of new lawmakers named in 2026 was six, down significantly from 2025’s total of 11, but closer to the typical trend the organization has seen since it began reporting in 2013. The notable difference was in 2017 through 2019, in which those years saw a spike of reports, which happened simultaneously with the “Me Too” movement. In 2017, NWDL saw 46 credible accusations; in 2018, that number went down slightly to 40; and in 2019, the number was 15. No other years have seen reports above a dozen.

The report praises Montana lawmakers for passing a study, Senate Joint Resolution 28, during the interim which will examine the ethics and adjudication process of lawmakers who are accused, including potential conflicts between the Legislature and the Commissioner of Political Practices. That office oversees complaints aimed at lawmakers and campaign finances, but limits what actions can be taken against a state lawmaker.

A final report on the study is due by Sept. 15.

SJ 28 recognized that there could be gaps between what the Legislature could do with a sitting lawmaker and what disciplinary actions the COPP could take. The legislation will also examine any gaps between the Legislature and COPP that would allow complaints to hit a bureaucratic brick wall.

The legislation in 2025 passed the House 66 to 34. The Montana Senate passed the resolution 40-8, with Windy Boy voting in favor of it by proxy.

The legislation was sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Pat Flowers, a Democrat from Belgrade. Flowers has also said publicly that Windy Boy should step down. 

“Most sexual harassment policies governing state legislatures remain embedded in chamber rules or internal procedures that are not publicly accessible or enforceable through statute and remain subject to partisan leverage and conflicts of interest,” the NWDL said in its report. “No state has yet developed a comprehensive policy framework that equitably and effectively prevents abuse, supports survivors, addresses offenders’ behavior expediently or holds violators consistently accountable.”

The report lists lawmakers state by state, what position they’ve held, how many reports have been made credibly, and if they’re still in office. Windy Boy has served in both chambers of the Montana Legislature for a combined total of 26 years. During the last session, he was given the title of longest tenured member of the Montana Senate.

WASHINGTON — King Charles III did not name President Donald Trump Tuesday when he acknowledged before a joint session of Congress the transatlantic tension between the United States and the United Kingdom, but stressed “America’s words carry weight and meaning” as he reflected on decades of diplomatic ties.

The monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland told lawmakers that from “bitter division” 250 years ago, the two nations “forged a friendship that has grown into one of the most consequential alliances in human history.”

“I pray with all my heart that our alliance will continue to defend our shared values with our partners in Europe and the Commonwealth and across the world,” he said.

Charles is the first British king to address a joint session of Congress, and only the second monarch to do so after his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, spoke before lawmakers in 1991.

Charles was received with loud unanimous applause from both sides of the aisle — a notable difference from the usual one-party enthusiasm during the president’s annual State of the Union address.

He punctuated his roughly 27-minute speech with laugh lines, including a quip that 250 years for America is “just the other day” for the British.

To whoops and cheers, Charles nodded to the “bold and imaginative rebels with a cause” who declared independence but also “carried forward” the ideals of the Magna Carta, a 13th-century document outlining the protection of rights and property from the monarch.

Both sides of the aisle stood applauding in unison as the king cited U.S. Supreme Court cases that laid the “foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.”

But the king also delivered his speech against the ominous backdrop of a breakdown of American support for Ukraine and an ongoing war in Iran, initiated by the United States and Israel, that has disrupted energy supply in the United Kingdom and around the world.

The conflicts “pose immense challenges for the international community and whose impact is felt in communities the length and breadth of our own country,” he said. 

As the king was still speaking on Capitol Hill, the White House shared on social media a photo of Charles and Trump together under the heading “TWO KINGS” and a crown emoji.

Trump attacks on British prime minister

U.S.-U.K. relations have frayed as a result of Trump’s recurrent attacks on British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s decision to not join offensive operations targeting Iran.

Trump paused his scathing online screeds against the British government during the king’s first full day of his state visit, which included a 21-gun salute and ceremonial flyover after Charles and Queen Camilla arrived on the White House South Lawn. 

Shortly before Charles addressed Congress, Trump took aim on his Truth Social platform at another European leader, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, accusing him of thinking “it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about!”  

Just over one month into the U.S. campaign in Iran, Trump, on Truth Social, told the U.K. and other allied partners to “Go get your own oil!”  from the blockaded Strait of Hormuz. 

“You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us,” he wrote.

Two weeks earlier, Trump attacked NATO allies, telling reporters in the Oval Office, “I’ve long said that, you know, I wonder whether or not NATO would ever be there for us. So … this was a great test, because we don’t need them, but they should have been there.”

Charles recounted in his speech to Congress how the only time the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, invoked Article 5 was to defend the United States following the Sept. 11, 2001 attack.

The king and Camilla are scheduled to visit the 9/11 Memorial in New York City on Wednesday.

“We stood with you then, and we stand with you now in solemn remembrance of a day that shall never be forgotten,” Charles said.

Just under 460 British troops died fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan.

Epstein files

The king’s trip to the U.S. also comes after the high-profile release of millions of records related to the disgraced hedge fund manager and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who had ties to Charles’ brother, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. 

Mountbatten-Windsor settled outside of court in 2022 with the late Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre, who accused Epstein and the former British prince of trafficking her for sex.

Mountbatten-Windsor has been stripped of his royal title of prince and is under investigation in Britain for allegedly sharing confidential government information with Epstein, which came to light in the publicly released files.

The king acknowledged victims of sexual abuse in his speech, according to a palace aide, when he remarked to lawmakers, “In both of our countries, it is the very fact of our vibrant, diverse and free societies that gives us our collective strength, including to support victims of some of the ills that, so tragically, exist in both our societies today.”

Answering questions about the king’s address, the palace aide told reporters traveling with Charles, “It was certainly in (his majesty’s) mind to acknowledge victims of abuse, so they are naturally incorporated in this line.”

Sky Roberts, Giuffre’s brother who has become an activist following his sister’s death last year, was on Capitol Hill Tuesday for a roundtable about Epstein victims ahead of Charles’ visit.

Roberts and the king did not meet.

King will visit Virginia

Charles, a vocal advocate for the environment, is also scheduled to visit Shenandoah National Park in Virginia Thursday to view America’s “extraordinary natural splendor.” The king emphasized to lawmakers the need for a collaborative effort to fight climate change.

“Even as we celebrate the beauty that surrounds us, our generation must decide how to address the collapse of critical natural systems, which threatens far more than the harmony and essential diversity of nature,” he said. 

“We ignore at our peril the fact that these natural systems, in other words nature’s own economy, provide the foundation for our prosperity and our national security,” he said.

Charles also celebrated the shared financial economy between the United States and U.K., highlighting $430 billion in annual trade. Just over a year ago, Trump began a new tariff regime on British goods, and imports from many other trading partners.

Review of the troops

Trump and first lady Melania Trump welcomed the king and queen on the White House South Lawn Monday morning for a ceremony full of pomp and circumstance, including a review of the troops, a distinguished honor for a visiting head of state.

During brief and mostly scripted remarks, Trump highlighted a tree planted on the White House grounds by Elizabeth II in 1991. Trump described the tree as a “living symbol” of the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.

“In the centuries since we won our independence, Americans have had no closer friends than the British. We share that same root. We speak the same language, we hold the same values, and together our warriors have defended the same extraordinary civilization under twin banners of red, white and blue,” Trump said.

Trump and Charles met in a closed-door Oval Office bilateral meeting following the ceremony. 

The first lady and the queen met with American schoolchildren at the White House tennis pavilion, where the students donned Meta Quest headsets to view several U.K. landmarks, including Stonehenge and Buckingham Palace. The event was part of the first lady’s effort to promote technology in education, according to the White House.

Charles and Camilla are scheduled to attend a state dinner at the White House East Room Tuesday night before heading to New York City Wednesday.

The king and queen are scheduled to visit the small town of Front Royal, Virginia, Thursday, as well as meet Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in Shenandoah National Park, according to the British embassy.

The U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday obtained a second grand jury indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, long a target of President Donald Trump’s anger for overseeing an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

A federal grand jury in North Carolina indicted Comey related to a photo he posted on social media of seashells arranged to read “86 47.” Comey took the photo while vacationing in North Carolina last year. The indictment alleges that Comey threatened to harm the president and that he used interstate commerce to transmit the threat when he posted the photo.

An arrest warrant was also issued for Comey. The indictment alleges that a “reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances” would interpret the seashell photo as a serious expression of intent to harm Trump.

Trump supporters have interpreted the photo as a threat against the president, since “86” is a slang term for removing something and “47” could be seen as a reference to Trump as the 47th president. Comey has said the photo wasn’t intended as a call to violence and deleted the post.

“While this case is unique and this indictment stands out because of the name of the defendant, his alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute,” acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said at a Justice Department news conference.

In a video posted online after the indictment, Comey said he was “still innocent” and wasn’t afraid. 

“Well, they’re back,” he says at the start of the video.

“It’s really important that all of us remember this is not who we are as a country, this is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be,” Comey said. “The good news is we get closer every day to restoring those values. Keep the faith.”

Trump’s feud with Comey

A federal grand jury in Virginia indicted Comey in September, accusing him of lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. The allegations relate to his testimony in 2020 about the FBI’s investigation into links between Russia and the Trump campaign. The indictment came days before the statute of limitations ran out.

Comey pleaded not guilty before a federal judge dismissed the case in November, finding the prosecutor in the case had been illegally appointed. The judge also dismissed a separate case against Democratic New York Attorney General Letita James.

The new indictment marked another escalation in the Trump administration’s efforts to prosecute Comey and other political enemies. Last week, the Justice Department obtained an indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that has long angered conservatives. 

Hours before the Justice Department announced the indictment, a federal judge in New York ruled that a wrongful termination lawsuit brought by Comey’s daughter, former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey, could proceed. Maurene Comey claims she was improperly fired from the Justice Department because of her father or for political reasons.

Blanche takes questions

The new prosecution also comes as Blanche, a personal defense attorney for Trump, leads the Justice Department following the departure of Pam Bondi. Trump has not yet nominated a permanent attorney general.

The Tuesday indictment was signed by Matthew Petracca, an assistant U.S. attorney in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

“This is a ridiculous indictment against James Comey. The Department of Justice will lose in court, again,” U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu, a California Democrat, wrote on social media.

At the news conference, Blanche fielded skeptical questions from reporters about how the case came together and why the criminal case wasn’t brought until nearly a year after the post. He refused to discuss evidence in the case, saying that would be unfair to Comey and prosecutors.

“You are not allowed to threaten the president of the United States of America,” Blanche said. “That’s not my decision, that’s Congress’ decision.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. senators across the aisle pushed back Tuesday against President Donald Trump’s proposal to eliminate funding for programs serving disadvantaged students.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended those and other proposed cuts to her agency outlined in Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget request, which calls for $75.7 billion in new discretionary budget authority for the department that would mark a $3.2 billion, or 4.1%, reduction from fiscal 2026 levels. 

The administration has taken major steps to dismantle the 46-year-old Department of Education as part of the president’s quest to send education “back to the states.” That effort continues despite much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurring at the state and local levels.

“We’ve been clear: Shifting authority back to the states will not come at the expense of the central federal programs (and) support, much of which predate the department itself,” McMahon told lawmakers at the hearing of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

The panel shares jurisdiction over Education Department spending with the corresponding subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. The president’s budget request is generally considered a starting point for negotiations, but Congress is responsible for deciding federal spending.

Bipartisan support for TRIO 

Republican and Democratic senators took particular aim at the administration’s proposal to eliminate Federal TRIO Programs in fiscal 2027.

The Federal TRIO Programs — funded at $1.19 billion this fiscal year — help support groups including low-income students, first-generation college students, individuals with disabilities and veterans. 

Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the full Senate Appropriations Committee, said she opposes the president’s proposal to eliminate TRIO, noting that these programs have “changed the lives of countless first-generation and low-income students in Maine and across the country.” 

The Maine Republican added that TRIO “enjoys robust support and has made such a difference in the lives of children.” 

Arkansas GOP Sen. John Boozman also emphasized his support for TRIO, noting that in his state, these programs “have been a game-changer in helping low-income and first-generation students not only access higher education, but also succeed once they are there.” 

Sen. Jeff Merkley was the first in his family to go to college and said he comes from a “very blue-collar, frontier, homesteading, timber background.”

The Oregon Democrat said it’s from that perspective he believes that “having conscious programs to help people overcome the cultural chasm that exists between blue-collar kids like myself and that college world that you have very little contact on is enormously valuable in America, and the stats from these programs are pretty damn impressive.” 

The secretary told the panel that while “there are many instances where the TRIO program has been very beneficial … as we look across the country in how to spend these dollars and how to have similar results by maybe not necessarily focusing students towards college degrees, maybe there’s another way for them to have their path to success.” 

McMahon said her agency was in the process of spending “about $2.1 million” for investigating and evaluating the TRIO programs.

In its summary of Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget request, the department said that TRIO “has failed to meet the vast majority of its performance measures, and studies of program effectiveness have shown that it has not increased college enrollment.” 

Dems decry plan to eliminate agency

Meanwhile, McMahon took heat from the leading Democrats on the subcommittee and the broader Senate Appropriations panel over the administration’s ongoing efforts to dismantle the agency. 

Part of those efforts include several interagency agreements between Education and the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Interior, State and Treasury that transfer many of Education’s responsibilities to those agencies.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, ranking member of the subcommittee, said Education “is transferring the vast majority of its programs to other federal departments, agencies with little experience or expertise or capacity to administer them.” 

The Wisconsin Democrat said that instead of “reducing bureaucracy” — a major goal of the administration across the federal government and the department in particular — the transfers are creating “another layer of it.”

She added that “where states previously primarily dealt with the Department of Education, they will now have to deal with multiple federal agencies.” 

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the full Appropriations Committee, pressed McMahon on the status of the administration mulling the transfer of special education services out of the Education Department amid its dismantling efforts. 

The possible move to transfer programs out of the department’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services has stoked widespread concern from disability advocates.

McMahon said her department was “still evaluating where those programs would best be located, and we have not made that determination yet.” 

“I can assure you that the intent of this administration is not to put these students at risk in any way whatsoever,” McMahon said. 

But Murray was not satisfied with the secretary’s response, saying she is “deeply concerned that your answer sounds like you’re still moving ahead — let’s make it clear that will break the law, and it will make it a lot harder for these students with disabilities to get the education and understanding that their country will stand behind them with that.” 

Gallatin County Attorney General Audrey Cromwell responded to Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen on Monday following an April 23 letter to the county from the state threatening to exercise supervisory control over that office if it did not follow instructions from Knudsen regarding information sharing with federal immigration agencies.

The long-running legal dispute goes back to an opinion Cromwell issued nearly a year ago, when Gallatin County was considering entering an interlocal agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, which she advised against.

Additionally, Knudsen has accused Gallatin County of having rules against sharing information with ICE, which she has argued is not true.

An Oct. 2, 2025, email sent by Cromwell’s office to local law enforcement states Gallatin County Attorney’s Office “does not legally recognize Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a law enforcement agency entitled to receive Confidential Criminal Justice Information (CCJI).”

The two attorneys exchanged letters in early April, with Knudsen demanding the county rescind the policy and Cromwell saying it doesn’t exist. 

Knudsen said Cromwell’s April 6 response to his April 3 letter, “confirms that the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office created a policy restricting the sharing of information with ICE in the form of legal advice purporting to distinguish between ICE’s civil and criminal enforcement activities” and added Montana law, “makes no such distinction.”

In response, on April 23, Knudsen requested Cromwell, “immediately recognize ICE in toto as a criminal justice agency in accordance with state law,” and to issue a memo to “to all relevant personnel stating that Gallatin County may share CCJI with ICE for civil immigration enforcement functions.”

Knudsen gave Cromwell until 5 p.m. on April 27, before he said his office would exercise supervisory control over the county attorney. Under state law, Knudsen has the ability to do that.

Powers given under state law to the attorney general, “include the power to order and direct county attorneys in all matters pertaining to the duties of their office. The county attorney shall, when ordered or directed by the attorney general, promptly institute and diligently prosecute in the proper court and in the name of the state of Montana any criminal or civil action or special proceeding.”

Cromwell wrote on April 27, ICE was acting, “for a civil purpose, not a criminal one” and needed to go through the proper process to access the confidential information it wanted.

Cromwell, underlining the words in her letter, wrote, it was “not a denial” of access.

“It is adherence to the rule of Montana law,” Cromwell wrote. “In this particular case, ICE was free to follow up at its discretion.”

Knudsen, on April 23, said Cromwell’s claim ICE “doesn’t qualify as a law enforcement agency in all contexts,” saying federal courts have “not adopted your novel distinction” and that her analysis “missed the mark.” 

“It doesn’t matter if ICE is ‘seeking confidential criminal justice information for a civil administrative immigration purpose’ and ‘not for a criminal investigation or prosecution,’” Knudsen’s April 23 letter reads. “Montana law simply says ‘dissemination of confidential criminal justice information is restricted to criminal justice agencies.’ ICE is a criminal justice agency. Full stop.”

On Monday, Cromwell submitted a signed affidavit saying, “I have not issued any rule, order, or policy—formal or informal—to the Gallatin County Records Department or any other County agency regarding sharing information with ICE.”

While it was unclear if the attorney general’s office planned to exercise supervisory control, it’s not the first time his office has requested supervisory control — Knudsen unsuccessfully lobbied state Supreme Court last year to exercise that body’s supervisory control over Missoula District Court, saying they were running “roughshod” over other branches of state government. That came out of a controversial law redefining sex in the state.

The AG’s Office did not immediately respond to a comment regarding whether it still planned to exercise supervisory control or whether they planned to issue an opinion on the matter, which Cromwell has repeatedly asked for. The Attorney General of Montana may issue advisory opinions when asked. 

Advisory opinions, written by the Attorney General’s Office, have the force of case law until a district court or supreme court decides a legal question. Montana law gives the Attorney General three months to issue an opinion after a request, unless the question’s complexity requires more time.

“Montana law expressly contemplates that county attorneys may request opinions from the Attorney General on questions of law arising in the course of their official duties,” Cromwell’s April 27 letter reads.

She added the refusal to do so “departs” from longstanding tradition and “leaves significant legal questions unresolved.”

Montana law allows the Legislature, state officials, city and county attorneys and other entities like city and counties to ask for an opinion when there’s a “question of law relating to their office.”

Cromwell then added, “I am compelled to question the basis for declining to act. The reasonable inference is that there is concern your office’s legal analysis may not withstand judicial scrutiny.”

She then gave a deadline to the Attorney General, saying she expected a formal opinion response by July 6.

“I remain prepared to follow a lawful and authoritative interpretation from your office,” Cromwell wrote. “Until then, I will continue to apply the statute as written.”

Republican Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow a Northern Kentucky church to build an outdoor shrine. 

The move is another step in a years-long legal battle for the church, Our Lady of Lourdes parish, which is operated by a Roman Catholic religious order the Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist in Park Hills. 

Coleman is leading a coalition of 20 Republican attorneys general to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the matter under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 2000. 

A press release from the attorney general’s office on April 27 said the order had zoning approval from the city in 2021 “to build a modest shrine offering a quiet place for meditation and worship before and after Mass,” but neighbors opposed the shrine in court. 

“In this country, we cannot allow a heckler’s veto to trump religious liberty,” Coleman said. “It’s not up to the courts to decide how we practice our faith. We’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to provide nationwide clarity and stand with people of faith who simply want to worship without unlawful government interference.”

In a 6-1 December ruling, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that “no violation of RLUIPA occurred” and ended the city’s permit to the church. Chief Justice Debra Lambert, who wrote the majority opinion, said the order “concedes that in 2021 it ‘voluntarily’ submitted an application for a grotto that was smaller in size than it originally intended.”

Previous local media reports say residents who have opposed the building of the shrine are concerned about increased traffic in the area. Park Hills has a population of a little more than 3,100. 

States joining Kentucky are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.

This story was originally produced by Kentucky Lantern, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson wants to make changes to a Senate-passed bill that would end the shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security, a move that will further delay funding and prolong the stalemate that began in mid-February. 

The holdup could again interrupt paychecks for workers at the Transportation Security Administration and Federal Emergency Management Agency, both of which are part of DHS. Huge backups in airline security lines resulted in March when TSA officers went without pay for weeks until the administration scrambled to reprogram funds.

Johnson, R-La., has chosen not to negotiate potential tweaks in the funding bill with Senate Democrats, who will be needed to advance it if the House makes alterations.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a Tuesday afternoon press conference the bill that’s stalled in the House doesn’t “need tweaks.” 

“They’re just stuck. So they come up with, ‘We need some technical changes,’” he said. “Hold up national security for technical changes? It’s absurd. They can pass the bill right now.” 

Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, said during a brief interview she was “flabbergasted” by Johnson’s comments.

She added during the press conference she has “no idea what technical changes they’re looking at.”

House hasn’t voted on DHS funding

The Senate unanimously passed a bill to fund the vast majority of the Department of Homeland Security in late March and again in early April. Johnson hasn’t put it to the House floor for a vote, blocking it from becoming law. 

The legislation doesn’t include funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Border Patrol, a compromise negotiated after Republicans and Democrats were unable to broker agreement on guardrails for immigration enforcement operations. 

Republicans plan to provide upwards of $70 billion in additional spending for ICE and Border Patrol in a party-line budget reconciliation bill they hope to pass in the coming weeks. 

Johnson said last week he believes the “sequencing is important” on when each of the two bills becomes law. But time is running out for the tens of thousands of federal workers, who are about to miss out on their paychecks once again. 

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a statement the executive order President Donald Trump signed earlier this month to pay all DHS employees despite the funding lapse can only stretch so far. 

“That money is dried up if I continue down this path the first week of May,” Mullin said. “My pay roll through DHS is just over 1.6 billion dollars every 2 weeks so the money is going extremely fast and once that happens there is no emergency funds after that.”

‘We’ve got to get these agencies funded’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he’s working with House GOP leaders to “massage” the DHS funding bill in hopes it will become law sometime soon. 

“I’m very sympathetic,” he said. “We talked last night and he’s got to manage his challenges there. We have to manage our challenges here. But one way or the other, we’ve got to get these agencies funded.”

The disconnect between House Republicans and their Senate GOP counterparts on when to fund DHS is just one of several challenges party leaders are attempting to address this week. 

“We’re trying as best we can to coordinate strategy with the House. But, you know, it’s a unique situation. We’ve got very narrow margins and people with real strong opinions,” Thune said. “So it’s going to take, obviously, I think, the heavy involvement of the White House to bust some of these things loose. But we’re trying as best we can to ensure that we can get all of these issues across the finish line and ultimately on the president’s desk.”

Republican leaders will need the support of their own members as well as at least some Democrats in order to get major legislation, including the DHS funding bill, to Trump. 

But as of midday Tuesday, it didn’t appear they’d looped in key negotiators on possible changes to the Senate-passed spending bill. 

Recess next week

Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt, chairwoman of the subcommittee in charge of funding DHS, said she didn’t know what changes House GOP leaders wanted to make. 

“I am not aware. I just know that we need to find a pathway forward,” she said. “And nobody should be leaving here, or certainly flying off to (congressional delegation trips), until we do.” 

Both chambers of Congress are scheduled to leave on Thursday for a week-long break. 

Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, ranking member on the DHS funding panel, said House Republicans hadn’t reached out to him or his staff. 

“I don’t know why he’s making this more complicated than it needs to be,” he said. “Our bill, which passed the Senate 100 to zero, would pass the House easily.”

COLUMBIA — The nation’s largest measles outbreak in decades came to an end Sunday, after more than a month without sickening anyone, according to the state health department.

The six-month outbreak infected 997 people, including at least 21 who required hospitalization, according to health department data. No one died.

South Carolina’s was the largest reported cluster of measles cases in the nation in the past 35 years, according to the health department. Officials declared it over after receiving no related reports of new cases in the past 42 days, which is double the virus’ incubation period.

“No one asks to be part of an outbreak, but thanks to the dedication of many South Carolinians, from school and hospital staff, medical providers, faith-based groups, the (Department of Public Health) team, businesses, and families working together, we have overcome this outbreak,” interim public health director Ed Simmer said in a statement Monday.

Measles outbreak by the numbers

• 997 people infected
• Exposures detected at 33 schools in seven districts
• 874 students asked to quarantine
• 1,670+ individual phone calls made by case investigators
• 3,788 additional doses of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine given in Spartanburg County when compared with the previous year
• 14,745 additional doses of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine given in the Upstate when compared with the previous year
• 81,096 doses of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine given overall statewide
• More than 5,800 infants vaccinated before typical first recommended dose
• $2.1 million spent in the agency’s response
• 2,294 quarantine letters sent
• 30 consecutive weeks, including weekends, worked by public health officials

Source: Department of Public Health

Health officials did diagnose one person in Saluda County during the 42-day window, the health department said April 17, but officials determined the case was separate from the larger outbreak in the Upstate. That person had recently returned from a trip abroad, according to the department.

The outbreak primarily affected unvaccinated children in Spartanburg County.

Of those sickened, at least 93% had not received either of the vaccine’s two doses. Spartanburg County residents accounted for 94% of cases, and 90% were under the age of 18, according to health department data.

Health officials credited the end of the outbreak to increased vaccination rates, a high number of people obeying quarantine orders and staying home after exposure and the natural immunity people infected with the virus received.

Although people infected gain a barrier of protection against future infection, it comes with significantly higher health risks than vaccination and preventing the disease outright, said Brannon Traxler, the agency’s chief medical officer.

Short-term cases can lead to pneumonia or encephalitis.

And in rare cases, measles can cause complications that don’t surface for years, such as fatal brain disorder called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis. Measles can also cause “immune amnesia,” erasing the body’s knowledge of how to fight certain infections, according to the public health agency.

The health department did not track the severity of cases, so it’s unclear how often these issues arose. But even in mild cases, those infected likely spent days to weeks dealing with a loss of appetite, low energy and the disease’s characteristic rash, Traxler told reporters Monday.

“They just didn’t feel well,” Traxler said of those infected. “I don’t think anyone wants to see their children suffering, and that is very much a component that is not captured by pure numbers.”

Altogether, the state spent an estimated $2.1 million on staffing and vaccine costs. Public health employees worked 30 weeks straight, including through the winter holidays, and hosted free vaccine clinics for the Upstate, Traxler said.

“Ending this outbreak was a monumental effort” for the department, she added.

Beyond just the health care costs the outbreak may have had other impacts, such as parents taking off work to care for sick children or quarantining themselves, as well as the effect on businesses where exposures occurred.

How did we get here?

Officials considered measles eliminated in 2000, 37 years after the introduction of the vaccine. But the past two years brought a national surge in the highly contagious virus as vaccination rates, especially among children, fell.

In South Carolina, the rate of students who received all their vaccines before starting school dropped in recent years, from more than 98% a decade ago to 94% during the 2024-2025 school year, according to state health department data.

The vaccination rate for school children in Spartanburg County, the outbreak’s epicenter, was even lower than the average. Just under 90% of students were fully vaccinated during the most recent school year, according to the data.

Although state law requires all students at private and public schools be up to date with immunizations, families can apply for exemptions for religious or medical reasons. More students have received religious exemptions in recent years, especially after students returned to school following the COVID-19 pandemic.

More than 8% of Spartanburg County’s students had a religious exemption in the 2024-2025 school year, surpassing every other county in the state. While a medical exemption requires a doctor’s note, a religious exemption requires only a parent’s signature and notarization.

A panel of senators rejected a bill last month that would have eliminated these religious exemptions.

In all, nearly 900 students in 33 schools across seven districts missed weeks of school as they quarantined because of exposure to the measles from classmates, according to the department.

Cases surged in January, when winter break made tracking down exposures to confirmed cases more difficult, officials said at the time.

Since the beginning of the outbreak, vaccinations against measles increased statewide, Traxler said.

Spartanburg County residents received nearly 4,000 more doses of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine during the past six months than they did during the same period the year before, according to health department data.

“I genuinely believe that everyone out there is trying to do what’s best and trying to make the best decisions for their children,” Traxler said. “I’m a parent myself. I understand the struggles that we all go through, just trying to decide, in each and every decision for our children, what is going to give them the best opportunity for the future.”

In addition to schools, many cases also spread from churches.

Among those were churches that held services spoken in Ukrainian and Russian.

With that in mind, the health department made a concerted effort to reach people in those communities, Traxler said.

People who have fled their countries, often because of the government, may be skeptical of any sort of government-led program, Traxler said. Or they may not have access to information about the vaccine or how to get it.

“They have a reason to have the doubts that they do,” she said. “So, then it’s providing that respect, that lack of judgment, and building trust.”

Health officials translated vaccine information into Ukrainian and Russian, and they visited Upstate churches to work with faith leaders and get correct information to people who needed it, Traxler said.

How many of their attendees were among the diagnosed is publicly unknown. The department did not release demographic information on those infected beyond their age and the county where they lived.

What happens next?

Now that the health department has declared the outbreak ended, it is reviewing data, looking for anything it could have done differently or detected earlier, Traxler said.

For one, the department could have done more to monitor hospitalizations and outcomes of cases, rather than only tracking diagnoses, Traxler said.

“The outbreak is over, but our work to understand and prevent measles and future outbreaks is not,” she said.

And while individual measles cases are still likely to pop up from international travel, the department’s primary goal is to keep those cases from expanding into another outbreak, Traxler said.

A large part of that effort will involve continuing to increase the rate of people vaccinated.

Most people receive two doses of the vaccine between the ages of 1 and 6, which protects against about 97% of infections. Most adults do not need booster shots, but anyone who hasn’t gotten both shots should consider doing so, Traxler said.

“Although I hope we do not have another outbreak, if we do, I am convinced South Carolina is well prepared,” Simmer said in a statement. “As we learned from this response, South Carolinians are strong, we are resilient, and when challenged, we rise to the occasion and are better, together.”

This story was originally produced by SC Daily Gazette, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Nearly one-fifth of Americans relied on drinking water systems with elevated and potentially dangerous levels of nitrate in recent years, according to a new study released Thursday.

The nonprofit Environmental Working Group examined test data collected by water systems across the country between 2021 and 2023, the most recent data available. 

Water systems serving more than 3 million people exceeded the federal safety limit of 10 milligrams per liter over the three years, the research and advocacy organization found.

The analysis also found that thousands of water systems serving more than 62 million people reported nitrate levels above 3 milligrams per liter at least once during those years, which indicates human-caused drinking-water contamination. 

Researchers are increasingly questioning whether the federal threshold should be lowered as more studies find links between even low levels of nitrate consumption and cancer and birth defects. Federal law limits nitrate levels in drinking water because of its association with blue-baby syndrome. 

Nitrate is a natural component of soil, but has become a growing problem for drinking water systems because of crop farming’s use of nitrogen fertilizers and runoff of nitrogen-rich manure from livestock operations.

States with big agricultural industries recorded more reports of elevated nitrate levels. In fact, the report found that 64% of all water systems that recorded nitrate levels at or above the legal limit were in just five states: California, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma. 

But Anne Schechinger, the organization’s senior director of agriculture and climate research who authored the report, said the issue affects urban and rural areas alike.

“A lot of people have this idea that this issue is just a rural issue for small towns near farms. But we found with this analysis that that is not just the case,” she told Stateline. “Based on how watersheds work, you can live very far from a farm and still be drinking water contaminated with nitrate.”

The analysis relies on public records obtained from public drinking water systems in every state except New Hampshire, where data was not provided, she said. In addition to its report, the Environmental Working Group created a map showing community water systems with elevated nitrate levels across the country.

Elevated nitrate levels have befuddled water providers across the country for years. Not only are they expensive to remove from drinking water supplies, but nitrate levels can fluctuate with the seasons as heavy rains can quickly push remnants of fertilizer or manure into streams and rivers. 

Iowa’s largest water provider last year asked residents to refrain from watering lawns, filling pools and washing cars as its nitrate removal system struggled to keep up with elevated levels. 

Des Moines is home to one of the largest nitrate removal systems in the world, which costs about $16,000 per day to operate, officials said. Smaller communities that rely on groundwater have been forced to dig deeper wells, Schechinger said.

Climate change is further fueling the problem: Agriculture is a major driver of greenhouse gas emission. The heavy rainfalls and prolonged droughts from more extreme weather worsen nitrate runoff into lakes, rivers and groundwater. 

“We know those climate conditions are going to make this problem worse,” Schechinger said. “And that’s likely to cost us all more and also (raise) more concerns for our health.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Who owns our Senator?

Really.  Who owns Senator Tim Sheehy?

One man invested $8 million in an unknown, unproven, young candidate’s Senate campaign.  For $8 million, you don’t just get a thank-you note.  You get ownership.

The Senate race between Sen. Jon Tester and newbie Tim Sheehy attracted more than $300 million.  Do the math: They spent more than $500 per vote.  In Montana.

It didn’t come from you or from me. It came from billionaires, millionaires, political action committees and dark money. It’s shameful. When it comes to hauling in the loot, Sheehy is in a class of his own.  He makes Montana’s Copper Kings look like pikers.

So, do you know who owns Montana’s junior Senator?

Guess?  Give it a try.

Take a minute.  How did a kid from Minnesota with a “pre-successful”  company become a United States Senator?

Stephen Schwarzman.

Do you know him? Did you meet him at the Billings Classic or visit with him at the Cat-Griz game? Probably not.He is a billionaire.

Schwarzman is one of the richest.  In the world.

Schwarzman lives on Park Avenue. No, not Park Avenue in Helena.  The Upper East Side of New York — that Park Avenue.  He founded a company called Blackstone that controls more than $1 trillion. Schwarzman’s net worth? Closer to God’s than mine; billions and billions.

Schwarzman and/or his company invested around $150 million in Sheehy’s company. It made Sheehy rich. He could self-fund his Senate campaign.

Then, Schwarzman contributed $8 million to Sheehy’s Senate campaign. He even hosted a fundraiser for the wannabe Senator.

The result?  According to the New York Times (reporters Mike Baker and Steven Rich), 64 billionaires and 37 of their family members contributed around $47 million to Sheehy’s campaign.

Forty-seven million dollars.

Think about that.

That’s an auction, not a democracy.

What does $47 million buy you?

I assume a Senator.

So why does a rich dude, living on Park Avenue, interfere in Montana politics?

How would he even know Tim Sheehy?

We can only speculate.

He wanted to buy a Senator. So, he bought a fresh one. Still in the original packaging.  Good hair, and easy to train to do what he was told.

Remember the “Copper Collar?”

The Copper Kings – William Andrews Clark, Marcus Daly and F. Augustus Heinze.

They plundered Montana. They controlled Montana, not by persuasion, but through money.  Bribery. They bought power and influence.  That’s probably not so different from today. The Anaconda Mining Company, “The Company” took over and controlled Montana.

This was the era when union organizer Frank Little was kidnapped, dragged behind a car, and hanged from a railroad trestle in Butte.  Why?  He worked to organize labor. Historic. His grave is in Butte. Visit it.

There are parallels between the Copper Kings and today.  The uber-rich had oversized influence and used their money to buy and control the government.  William Andrews Clark even bought a seat in the U.S. Senate, back when state legislatures elected Senators.  He resigned when his corruption was exposed.

Clark was a notorious example of elections being purchased by the rich.

Not a pleasant thought then or now.  People were revolted by the corruption.

The result?  In 1912, Montana passed the Montana Corrupt Practices Act, a voter referendum banning corporate donations to political campaigns.  It worked.  Then, the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down in the Citizens United and American Tradition Partners cases.  The court held that political donations were “free speech.”

Who knew?  Now, a billionaire’s money is “free speech.”  No,  I don’t think so.  That’s a mistake.  Toss those Supreme Court decisions in the “bad history” pile with Plessy v. Ferguson, where in 1896, the Court established the “Separate but Equal” doctrine.

Courts aren’t perfect.

After William Andrews Clark, people ignited a movement to change the Constitution.

The 17th Amendment provides for the direct election of Senators.

The Copper Kings and the Company controlled Montana for decades. That was Montana’s Dark Age.

Unscrupulous men sold their souls; they wore the “copper collar.”

Wearing the copper collar wasn’t just answering to “the Company.”  It meant a person was owned.

Newspapers.  Judges.  Legislators.  State-wide office holders.

Sheehy doesn’t wear a copper collar.

His is shinier.  Must be platinum.

And, it’s attached to a dark money leash.

History is repeating itself.

It’s our history — Montana history.

It’s a history of corporate dominance, corruption and plunder.

Tim Sheehy isn’t the first to wear a collar.  Just the most recent.

We need campaign finance reform to save our democracy.  Tim Sheehy is Exhibit One.

In 1912, it took a movement to get big money out of politics.

We need another movement today.

Money isn’t speech.  Corporations aren’t people.

Even as election officials throughout the state reminded residents last month of changes to Montana’s election laws and how ballots should be marked, Montana’s largest county, Yellowstone, said that it is working with nearly 1,000 residents to fix rejected ballots before the school board elections on May 5.

On Monday afternoon, Yellowstone County Elections Administrator Dayna Causby said that 960 ballots had been rejected largely because most failed to include the elector’s birth year, which is now required by state law.

That new requirement caused a higher percentage of Montana ballots to be rejected in 2025, but election officials are worried because there are several different elections in 2026, including primaries in June as well as the general election in November. 

Causby reported:

.indent2Container { margin-left: 1em; border-left: solid 1px var(--brand_one); padding-left: 2em; }

“The Election Office is reporting a 4.38% rejection rate on returned ballots, with more than 95% of those rejections due to a single issue: Voters did not include their birth year on the signature envelope. The office is contacting all 960 affected voters by mail, and phone/email if available and is urging them to correct their signature envelopes before the deadline.”

 

House Bill 719 was introduced by Rep. Braxton Mitchell, R-Columbia Falls, as a way to add security measures to the ballots. The law now requires Montana voters to add their birth year. The law went into effect for the 2025 elections, which in Montana, usually are municipal elections. 

During those elections, thousands of ballots statewide were rejected due to voters failing to write in their birth year on envelopes who did not respond to calls, mailed or emailed notices about the errors from their local election departments.

In Yellowstone County, election administrators told the Daily Montanan the rejection rate was nearly 4.5% initially, and after more than 800 ballots were resolved by voters it dropped to 2.03%. However, that was more than double the previous municipal election rate in 2023 of 0.78%.

Reporter Micah Drew contributed to this report. 

U.S. Sen. Tim Sheehy, a Republican from Montana, is one of at least three members of Congress who responded to the shooting at the White House Press Correspondents dinner in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, calling on lawmakers to approve plans for a ballroom at the White House.

President Donald J. Trump, a Republican, tore down the East Wing of the White House without proper approval and began plans to build a large ballroom that some critics said would dwarf the remainder of the White House. In addition to plans for a large ballroom for public events and official state visits, details about the plans have been slowly trickling from the White House, including plans to update a military-style operations bunker for emergencies as well as medical facilities there.

Trump has said repeatedly that no taxpayer funds would be used to build the ballroom, even as the price tag for the construction has continued to escalate and several lawsuits from historic preservation groups have been filed.

Cole Tomas Allen, 31, of Torrance, California has been identified as the suspected shooter who shot a federal agent at the dinner in the Washington Hilton on Saturday night. The President and First Lady Melania Trump were whisked away safely.

After the incident, Sheehy posted on X (formerly “Twitter”) that he would be introducing legislation to lend Congress’ support for the ballroom construction, saying it was a matter of security and safety for the President and other national leaders. 

Sheehy said he would try to approve the measure by “unanimous consent” which is a parliamentary procedure that would require the approval of all 100 U.S. Senators, something that appears unlikely in the deeply divided Congress as it heads into a heated election season. 

Sheehy was not the only lawmaker to call for a more secure option, namely the ballroom. Fellow U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, who often votes with Republicans ,signaled his support for approving the ballroom. So did U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a Republican from Texas. 

“It is an embarrassment to the strongest nation on earth that we cannot host gatherings in our nation’s capital, including ones attended by our President, without the threat of violence and attempted assassinations,” Sheehy said.

On Monday, several notable Republicans including Sens. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky had introduced legislation supporting the ballroom and funding it at taxpayer expense.

The Daily Montanan reached out to Sheehy’s office, which put out a press release on Sunday repeating the call for legislation via unanimous consent, but the office did not respond. The Daily Montanan inquired about the timeline for the legislation, and how such a measure would interact with the plans surrounding the ballroom as well as the legal processes.

“There is no place for political violence in America. Unfortunately, it seems, too many people believe trying to kill our President and members of our government is acceptable. A President of any party should be able to host events in a secure area without attendees worrying about their safety. This is common sense. Let’s get it done,” Sheehy said as part of his statement. 

For his part, Trump took to social media on Sunday to use the event in order to emphasize his plans for the White House ballroom.

“What happened last night is exactly the reason that our great military, Secret Service, law enforcement and, for different reasons, every President for the last 150 years, have been DEMANDING that a large, safe, and secure ballroom be built ON THE GROUNDS OF THE WHITE HOUSE,” Trump said on his own social media site, Truth Social, on Sunday morning. “This event would never have happened with the Militarily Top Secret Ballroom currently under construction at the White HOuse. It cannot be built fast enough!”

States Newsroom Washington D.C. Bureau reporter Jacob Fischler contributed to this report. 

WASHINGTON — The California man said by federal prosecutors to have opened fire just outside the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, where President Donald Trump was in attendance alongside Cabinet members and lawmakers, was charged Monday with attempting to assassinate the president, administration officials said.

The 31-year-old identified by authorities as Cole Tomas Allen was also arraigned in Washington, D.C., federal court on charges of interstate transportation of a firearm with intent to commit a felony and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.

He faces up to life in prison if convicted of attempting to kill the president. Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet members all safely evacuated the Washington Hilton ballroom.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro said, “There will be additional charges as this investigation continues to unfold.”

“But make no mistake, this was an attempted assassination of the president of the United States, with the defendant making clear what his intent was, and that intent was to bring down as many of the high-ranking Cabinet officials as he could,” Pirro said at a Monday afternoon press conference with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel.

Allen was not charged with assault on a federal officer, as Pirro had said Saturday night he would be.

One Secret Service agent was shot in the chest but was protected by a bulletproof vest. Blanche said that particular agent had fired five times at Allen. The suspect was not hit but fell to the ground and scraped his knee, according to Blanche and Pirro.

Blanche would not elaborate further on ballistics, including details about a shot Allen allegedly fired.

“All the evidence is being examined very carefully and expeditiously, and we’ll know more soon,” Blanche said.

The federal prosecutors’ complaint is sealed. 

Suspect took train from Los Angeles to Washington

According to a signed affidavit, Allen made a reservation for the Washington Hilton on April 3, for the dates of April 24-26. He left Los Angeles on April 23 and traveled by train to Washington, D.C., via Chicago, according to the court filing, which also includes what investigators and Trump have described as a “manifesto.”  

Allen arrived at the Washington Hilton around 3 p.m. Eastern Friday, a day ahead of the high-profile correspondents’ dinner that annually draws administration officials, lawmakers, celebrities and often the president himself. 

Trump, opting to skip the event in previous years, was attending the dinner for the first time. Vice President JD Vance and many of Trump’s Cabinet members were in attendance, as was House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. — several in the presidential line of succession. 

According to the affidavit, at 8:40 p.m. Allen “approached and ran through the magnetometer holding a long gun” at a security checkpoint on the hotel’s Terrace level leading to the Concourse level, where the dinner was ongoing.

“As he did so, U.S. Secret Service personnel assigned to the checkpoint heard a loud gunshot. U.S. Secret Service Officer V.G. was shot once in the chest; Officer V.G. was wearing a ballistic vest at the time. Officer V.G. drew his service weapon and fired multiple times at ALLEN, who fell to the ground and suffered minor injuries but was not shot. ALLEN was subsequently arrested,” according to the affidavit.

Allen was carrying a 12-gauge pump action shotgun and a .38 caliber pistol, according to the court document. Pirro also said the suspect had on him “at least three knives and all kinds of paraphernalia.”

When pressed by a journalist on how investigators know that Trump was Allen’s primary target, Blanche said he could not share details. 

“We’re a day-and-a-half into the investigation. As we talked about earlier, we were able to get multiple devices from various locations, the hotel room and also where he lived in California. We have started that process. There’s nothing more that would be appropriate to share at this time, until we have thoroughly gone through it, which we’re doing,” Blanche said.

Trump publicly shared photos of the man identified as Allen, shirtless and handcuffed on the hotel floor, Sunday night.

Leavitt blames Dems for political violence

During Monday’s press briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt described Saturday’s incident as an attempt on Trump’s life, and she denounced political violence while blaming Democrats and the left for “fueling” it. 

“This political violence stems from a systemic demonization of him and his supporters by commentators, yes, by elected members of the Democrat Party and even some in the media,” Leavitt said.

“Those who constantly falsely label and slander the president as a fascist, as a threat to democracy and compare him to Hitler to score political points, are fueling this kind of violence,” she said. 

Blanche also decried critics for “calling the president horrible names for no reason and without evidence, without proof.” 

Republican party campaigners also delivered a similar message Monday, implicating Democrats’ “reckless, inflammatory rhetoric against President Trump and Republicans.” The committee’s chair, Joe Gruters, also accused Democrats in a statement released Monday of not speaking out against the attack.

Trump routinely namecalls and ridicules his political foes and the press on his social media platform, Truth Social, and in speeches. In a post Friday, the president called Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries a “Low IQ individual who is not smart enough to be ‘running’ the Democrat Party.”

Upon the death in March of former FBI director and decorated combat veteran Robert Mueller, Trump wrote on social media, “Good, I’m glad he’s dead.”

During a November press gaggle on Air Force One, Trump told a female reporter from Bloomberg, “Quiet, Piggy,” as she asked a question.

Homeland Security funding

Leavitt also blamed Democrats for the monthslong shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security, under which the Secret Service operates.

“This is a national emergency, and every member of Congress needs to put their country over party and get the Department of Homeland Security funded,” Leavitt said. The shutdown occurred after Democrats insisted on new guardrails for federal immigration agents following the deadly shootings of two U.S. citizens in Minnesota.

Leavitt said Trump “continues to have trust in the Secret Service” and “was satisfied with the response.” 

White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles will convene a meeting with top DHS leadership, members of the Secret Service and White House operations officials “to ensure safety and the security of the president,” Leavitt said.

The ballroom

Leavitt also advocated for the president’s proposed ballroom construction, calling it “critical for our national security” during large events where several officials and lawmakers in line for the presidency gather together.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation legally challenged the construction of the ballroom, for which Trump demolished the East Wing in October. 

Blanche shared a letter on social media Sunday urging the trust to drop its lawsuit by 9 a.m. Eastern on Monday and blaming it for putting “the lives of the president, his family and his staff at great risk.”

The organization responded in a letter that it would not drop the case.

The Trust’s President and CEO Carol Quillen said in a statement the organization is “grateful” to law enforcement for keeping Trump and all guests safe over the weekend.

“We are not planning to voluntarily dismiss our lawsuit, which endangers no one and which respectfully asks the administration to follow the law. Ballroom construction is continuing unabated until June 5th at the earliest because the injunction is on hold,” Quillen said in a statement provided to States Newsroom.

“We have always acknowledged the utility of a larger meeting space at the White House. Building it lawfully requires the approval of Congress, which the administration could seek at any time.”

The U.S. Supreme Court could be ready to overturn a Missouri state court verdict that favored a man who sued the manufacturer of the popular herbicide Roundup for lacking any warning that the product carried a risk of cancer after oral arguments in the case Monday.

The arguments focused on whether states could enforce their own labeling requirements of pesticides, or whether federal law preempted any deviation among states. Members of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority emphasized the need for uniformity across the country.

The U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the case in favor of Monsanto, the Missouri-based company that manufactures Roundup and has been owned since 2018 by German pharmaceutical company Bayer. The company faces thousands of lawsuits claiming exposure to Roundup increased a risk of cancer and that the company failed to warn consumers when it reasonably should have known of the risk.

Monsanto denies that the product causes cancer, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has consistently agreed.

John Durnell, a St. Louis resident, sued the company in 2019 claiming that exposure to Roundup over two decades led to his developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. A Missouri trial court awarded him $1.25 million, and appeals courts affirmed the ruling.

But the Supreme Court, which is the first federal court to hear the case, seemed inclined to protect federal supremacy. The EPA, which regulates labeling requirements for herbicides, does not require the kind of warning the Missouri jury said was appropriate.

Federal law typically trumps state law, which Monsanto and the Justice Department emphasized Monday. Industry groups across the economy tend to support federal supremacy because it saves companies from complying with 50 separate regulatory schemes across states.

‘Is that uniformity?’

An exchange between Ashley Keller, the attorney for Durnell, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whom President Donald Trump appointed in his first term, may hold the key to the court’s ultimate ruling.

Keller argued that Congress in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which governs herbicide use, did not include a clause to expressly say that the federal law would preempt any state claims.

There was no issue of a difference between state and federal law, Keller said. Instead, a particular jury decided a single case based on unique facts, he continued. Different juries in other cases may have decided differently.

But Kavanaugh seemed not to accept that argument. He rephrased a similar question several times, and, even as Keller objected, appeared to dismiss the idea that the Missouri verdict was compatible with a national standard.

“You think it’s uniformity when each state can require different things?” he asked.

Keller rejected that framing. 

“The label’s illegal in one state and legal in another state,” Kavanaugh responded. “That’s uniformity?” 

Keller said he didn’t agree with that premise either, saying the label is not illegal based on the state but based on the facts presented at trial and the jury’s interpretation.

“The label subjects you to liability in one state and does not subject you to liability in another state,” Kavanaugh continued. “Is that uniformity?”

“I don’t think it’s state by state,” Keller said. “I think it’s jury by jury.”

Paul Clement, a well-known conservative appeals lawyer, represented Monsanto in the case, and described Keller’s argument as chaotic. It would not just open up separate regulatory regimes in each state in the country, but subject manufacturers to liability based on the makeup of any particular batch of citizens on a state court jury.

“It’s worse than 50 states,” he said. “It’s every jury is a new day.” 

A host of agencies in countries across the globe have all done studies on glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, Clement said.

“It’s probably the most, like, studied herbicide in the history of man, and they’ve all reached the conclusion based on more data and the kind of expert analysis they can do that there isn’t a risk here,” he said. “You shouldn’t let a single Missouri jury second-guess that judgment.”

Liberal justices seek consumer protections

The court’s liberal justices spent more time questioning why states shouldn’t be allowed to enforce stricter regulations.

Justice Elena Kagan asked Principal Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris, who argued on behalf of the federal government in favor of throwing out the verdict against Monsanto, if she agreed with Clement’s argument.

Harris said she largely agreed, noting that 50 states setting up separate regulations on labeling pesticides would cause confusion.

But Kagan asked why uniformity should be a higher goal than safety, saying a certain state government might have a better understanding than the EPA.

“It does undermine uniformity, I appreciate that,” Kagan said. “On the other hand, if it turns out that they (state regulators) were right, it might have been good if they had an opportunity to do something to call this danger to the attention of the people while the federal government was going through its process.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also pointed out that the EPA only registers herbicides once every 15 years, meaning that states might have better information than the EPA, especially later in that cycle.

“Lots of things can happen in science in terms of developments about the product,” she told Clement. “So if the product can become misbranded because of new information, I guess I’m just wondering why you think that you couldn’t have a situation where it would be perfectly rational for either the EPA or the states to bring to the attention of that manufacturer this new information and process a claim related to it.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday appeared likely to allow law enforcement to continue seeking warrants for the location history of cellphones near crime scenes, even as the justices wrestled with how far the government must go to protect Americans’ privacy.

Some of the justices appeared to be searching for a middle ground during oral arguments in a case out of Virginia challenging what is known as a geofence warrant that was used to catch a bank robber. Several justices asked skeptical questions of both sides, though no one voiced explicit support for prohibiting such warrants altogether.

As smartphones have become ubiquitous, along with apps that track users’ movements, the high court is once again wading into how the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, applies in the digital era. The justices’ decision, of tremendous interest to state attorneys general, will shape how easy or difficult it is for investigators to sweep up location data.

Over the past two decades, geofence warrants have become a major tool of law enforcement. At a basic level, they allow police to identify phones within a geographic area for a certain period of time. 

The data can be tremendously valuable to investigators, offering a way to develop suspects in crimes where their identities aren’t otherwise known. Underscoring their importance, a broad bipartisan coalition of states has urged the justices to uphold the warrants.

But civil liberties advocates say geofence warrants ensnare people in digital dragnets, handing the government data on anyone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They argue that accessing data on anyone within a certain area — the geofence — amounts to a general warrant prohibited by the Constitution.

Summing up the high court’s uncertainty in Monday’s arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett told U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin, who was arguing in favor of law enforcement access to location data, that while he had described his opponent’s position as maximalist, “there’s a risk of the government’s position being maximalist the other way.”

“I was just going to say this seems very complicated from the user’s point of view, frankly,” Barrett said at a different portion of the argument.

Credit union robbery

The case before the Supreme Court, Chatrie v. United States, arises from a 2019 robbery of a federal credit union in Midlothian, Virginia. Okello Chatrie was convicted of armed robbery after surveillance footage showed the robber using a cellphone. A detective then obtained a geofence warrant directed at Google for devices within 150 meters of the credit union within an hour of the robbery.

Google initially provided anonymized data in response to the warrant. The detective then requested and received additional location data on nine users. Finally, the detective received de-anonymized information on three users, without obtaining an additional warrant.

While Google has since changed the way it stores location history data to limit geofence warrants, other apps and tech firms collect the data. Lawyers for Chatrie argue that geofence warrants open the door to the authorities requesting information on everyone at a sensitive location — perhaps an abortion clinic or a political convention — at a particular time.

“The warrant authorized the government to direct Google to search every single person’s account to find those people who were within the geofence. That is a general warrant,” Adam Unikowsky, a lawyer for Chatrie, told the court.

4th Amendment debate

The Supreme Court’s last major decision on 4th Amendment rights and phones came in 2018, when the justices ruled that law enforcement generally needs a warrant for location data derived from when phones connect to a cell site. That data is generated by just having a cellphone, and the justices found that a phone is now a basic element of participating in society.

By contrast, the Trump administration argues location history data isn’t protected by the 4th Amendment because users voluntarily share it with Google and other tech firms by turning on location tracking on their phones. Because the information was turned over with their consent, users have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

“Petitioner here is asking for an unprecedented transformation of the 4th Amendment into an impregnable fortress around records of his public movements that he affirmatively consented to allow Google to create, maintain and use,” Feigin said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court’s three liberal justices, argued that if the government can access location data without a warrant because Chatrie consented to sharing it with Google, then the government could obtain all sorts of other data shared with the company, such as photos and calendar entries.

“If this is consent, that means the government can seek those documents for any reason, not just the commission of a crime — or no reason, correct?” Sotomayor said.

“Correct. It would not be a search, so no search warrant would be required,” Unikowsky replied.

Red and blue states back geofence warrants

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have filed a court brief arguing that geofence warrants can be more precise than many traditional investigative methods when supported by probable cause and appropriately tailored. In the brief, they urged the justices not to prohibit geofence warrants altogether.

State attorneys general across the political spectrum signed on to the brief. They include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Geofence warrants can generate critical leads when the perpetrators of crimes are otherwise unknown, they wrote. When suspects are unknown but the suspected wrongdoing is linked to a specific place and time, location data provides one of the narrowest available tools for finding leads, the brief argues.

“This Court should make clear that the Constitution does not categorically ban those investigative methods,” the states’ brief reads.

Google brief

In a court brief, Google said geofence warrants result in invasive searches that are overbroad. Geofence searches, by their nature, have a high risk of sometimes sweeping in thousands of innocent users, the company said.

Even small geographic areas covering short periods of time can include hundreds of thousands of people, Google argued. Geofence parameters set by law enforcement often cover more ground than the location of the crime, with private homes, apartments, government buildings, hotels, places of worship and busy roads all included.

Lawyers for Google wrote that the company takes no position on whether the warrant in the Chatrie case complies with the 4th Amendment.

“But Google firmly believes that, based on the private nature of Location History data, law enforcement was required to obtain a warrant to access that data,” the brief says.

Orin Kerr, a Stanford Law School professor and one of the nation’s foremost experts on the 4th Amendment, predicted after the oral argument that the justices would likely rule that geofence warrants can be constitutionally drafted. 

However, he was uncertain whether the court would rule on whether the geofence search that identified Chatrie’s phone was a search under the 4th Amendment.

“They’ll probably say that geofence warrants have to be limited in time and space,” Kerr wrote on social media.

The National Republican Congressional Committee announced on Monday that Aaron Flint had been added to the 2026 MAGA Majority program, which gives candidates, “early support, strategic resources, and visibility.”

Flint, a former talk-show radio host, has drawn endorsements from a number of Republican leaders, both in Montana and nationally. He is also coming off a strong debate performance, though it only included half the Republican primary field for Montana’s Western Congressional District.

“Aaron Flint is a strong conservative voice who understands Montana’s values of freedom, hard work, and self-reliance. He’s ready to help House Republicans defend the American way of life, lower costs, and keep Montana red,” NRCC Spokesman Christian Martinez said in a press release.

The MAGA Majority program is a rebranding of the House Republican’s “Young Guns” effort, which was established during the 2007–2008 election cycle.

“Aaron Flint just sealed his fate, making clear to Montanans that he would fight for business as usual in D.C. instead of putting Montanans first,” DCCC spokesperson Lindsay Reilly said in a statement. “Flint would be just another rubberstamp for an extreme agenda that’s gutting health care to pay for tax cuts for billionaires, instituting reckless tariffs that are jacking up costs on families and businesses, and destroying Montanans’ way of life.”

Editor’s note: The DCCC released a statement regarding Flint’s entrance into the program, which has been added to this piece.

Dry, dormant grass surrounded Terry Peak this winter. The ski area was a patch of artificial white amid miles of brown.

The Black Hills experienced one of its driest, warmest winters on record, according to state climatologist Laura Edwards. 

“You see a lot of top 10s across South Dakota, essentially,” Edwards said. “I think that’s the story of the winter.”

In the Black Hills, winter weather is an economic lifeline during tourism’s offseason. The visitor industry of the northern Black Hills, in particular, is built around snowy winters.

From October through early April, snowfall in the northern Black Hills was about 8 feet less than average. Other parts of the Black Hills saw deficits of 2-3 feet.

That lack of snow impacted businesses that depend on winter recreation, such as downhill skiing, snowmobiling and cross-country skiing. Owners and industry workers expect warmer winters to continue, forcing them to adapt.

Winter precipitation amounts are trending downward and average winter temperatures are trending upward in Lawrence County, which encompasses the northern Black Hills, according to data from the National Centers for Environmental Information. The county is trending an inch less in precipitation between December and March compared to the late 1800s, and it’s trending 4 degrees Fahrenheit higher.

$6.5 million investment keeps ski area open

This winter was among the “most challenging” in Linda Derosier’s 38 years at Terry Peak.

“It’s tough to remind people or get them to understand that there was snow at Terry Peak when they’re looking at brown grass in their backyard,” said Derosier, the ski area’s marketing director. 

Winters have become warmer in the last few decades, Derosier said, and snowfall in the northern Black Hills varies widely year to year.

The resort spent $6.5 million over the past two years to update its snowmaking system, replacing water lines, adding snowmaking locations and installing permanent snow guns. 

The investment more than tripled snowmaking capacity and helped sustain operations this season. Ski resorts across the United States closed early — or didn’t open at all — because temperatures were too warm to make snow.

Derosier said employees often made snow overnight when temperatures were cool enough on the mountain, which is one of South Dakota’s highest with a summit above 7,000 feet. She added that the visitors who came this year are more likely to return and buy season passes because they saw the resort was able to maintain reliable conditions.

Cross-country skiing, snowmobiling nearly nonexistent

No snow means no business for Recreational Springs Resort, said owner Brent Eslinger. In addition to lodging, the resort offers a restaurant, bar and snowmobile rentals.

Snowmobiling relies entirely on natural snowfall, and riders were largely unable to get out in the Black Hills this winter.

window.addEventListener("message", function(event) { var message = JSON.parse(event.data); if (message.sender == "Flourish" && message.context == "iframe.resize") { src = message.src.replace(/#.+$/, ""); vizFrame = document.querySelector('iframe[src="' + src + '"]'); vizFrame.setAttribute('height', message.height); } });

The annual Deadwood Snocross National was canceled in January because of lack of snow. Eslinger still hosted an annual vintage snowmobile club gathering, though members couldn’t take their usual ride.

Cross-country skiing was nearly nonexistent, said Eric Anderson, volunteer grooming coordinator for the Black Hills Nordic Ski Club. The nonprofit maintains cross-country skiing and snowshoe trails in the northern Black Hills.

The club typically grooms trails 30 to 40 times a year. This winter, Anderson said the club groomed three times.

“When skiing isn’t available, people pivot to other things to do,” Anderson said. “It makes it tough to maintain your user group, community and interest level when you don’t have snow every year and it isn’t as predictable.”

Without winter recreation, Eslinger has to work harder to bring locals and visitors into his business. Recreational Springs Resort also rents all-terrain vehicles and hosts events and private parties, such as weddings and reunions.

“You need to have that winter traffic to help make it through the rest of the year,” Eslinger said. “It’s either that or become a seasonal operation. Which, even then, I have fixed costs I have to pay for and that winter income helps offset a lot of that.”

Economic, visitor impact

Other Black Hills winter events were canceled due to warm, dry conditions. Chinook Days in Spearfish and the Burning of the Beetle in Custer were canceled, the former due to lack of snow and the latter due to high fire danger.

Visitor spending varied across the region this winter. Meade County, which includes Sturgis, experienced declines in winter visitor spending, according to the South Dakota Tourism dashboard, while Pennington County, which includes Rapid City, posted gains.

Custer County visitor spending fluctuated — down 23.8% in December compared with the previous year, up 22.6% in January and down 25.5% in February. Lawrence County, which includes Spearfish and Deadwood, had modest gains in December and January before a 7% drop in February.

Michelle Thompson, president of the Black Hills and Badlands Tourism Association, said snow-dependent businesses struggled, but other businesses benefited from the milder weather. Visitors had easier access to hiking trails, parks and museums.

The Black Hills Stock Show and Rodeo in Rapid City, an annual indoor winter event, “had a great year,” Thompson said, with record crowds and sold-out performances.

Thompson said visitor numbers throughout the Black Hills and Badlands region remained comparable to years past — total visitor trips were down 0.8% compared with last winter, while visitor spending increased 1.7%. The winter season accounts for just under a quarter of annual visitation.

“We feel for the businesses that rely on winter sports, and we know it wasn’t great for them,” Thompson said. “When the weather is good, we draw in visitors for other experiences we have.”

This story was originally produced by South Dakota Searchlight, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday will hear oral arguments on the Trump administration’s efforts to strip temporary legal status from 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, a move that could open them up to deportation.

The case has the potential to have an impact on multiple lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to end protections for more than 1.3 million immigrants from all over the globe with Temporary Protected Status, granted because they hail from countries deemed too dangerous for return. 

The effort to end TPS designation is part of President Donald Trump’s broader efforts to curtail immigration and strip legal status for people, opening them up to his mass deportation drive. 

“The decision will have the capacity to impact everyone with TPS,” José Palma, a coordinator for the National TPS Alliance, told reporters. 

Palma is a TPS recipient from El Salvador.

At the start of the second Trump administration there were 17 countries with a TPS designation. Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended the status for 13 countries — Afghanistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.  

Noem argued that she determined the countries no longer met the threshold for TPS and that the designation was not in the interest of the United States.

The moves sparked multiple lawsuits from immigration advocates and TPS recipients. Lower courts have mostly blocked the terminations from taking effect, but it’s still resulted in loss of work authorizations, healthcare and deportations of some people with temporary status, Palma said.

In the TPS Haiti and Syria case before the justices, which was consolidated from two separate cases, lawyers argue that DHS did not follow proper government procedures in revoking the status. 

They also contend that the termination of a country destination was predetermined and motivated by racism, especially the targeting of Black immigrants such as Haitians. 

“The most damning evidence is President Trump’s own words, his own actions,” Sejal Zota, one of the attorneys on the Haiti TPS case, told reporters during a briefing. “During his last campaign, he falsely claimed Haitian immigrants were eating the pets of the people in Springfield (Ohio). And days later, after the pets comment, he promised to revoke Haiti’s TPS and send them back to their country.”

Even after the justices rule, the outcome of the cases is not final because both cases were in preliminary stages at the district court level before the Trump administration took the two cases to the Supreme Court, skirting the typical appeals courts. 

A ruling is expected in late June or early July, and then both cases would go back to the lower courts to continue on the merits argument. However, the practical effect, if the Supreme Court finds in favor of the government, would be that Haitians and Syrians would be potentially subject to deportation. 

History of TPS

Congress created TPS in 1990 and instructed the attorney general to consult with appropriate agencies, such as the State Department, to designate a country that is too unsafe to return to due to war, major disasters or other extraordinary circumstances. 

When Congress created DHS in 2002 – in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attack – that authority was transferred over to the secretary of Homeland Security. 

A designation lasts six,12 or 18 months, and each recipient has to undergo a background check in order to remain in the U.S. and have valid work permits. Congress did not place any limits on how many times a country can be renewed for TPS, citing the potential for long-term conflicts like civil war.

Zota, one of the attorneys on the TPS case for Haiti, said the Trump administration has “attempted to reverse-engineer the facts to justify its politically … motivated decision to terminate Haiti’s TPS.”

She said the State Department has warned people not to travel to Haiti due to gang violence, kidnappings, terrorist activity and civil unrest. 

The State Department advises people if they still plan to travel to Haiti to make sure to leave dental records and DNA in case their family needs to identify their remains. 

“Our own government has conceded the peril there,” Zota said. 

Haiti was first given a TPS designation after the devastating 2010 earthquake. The designation was renewed multiple times due to the disaster and then again after Haiti’s president was assassinated by gangs in 2021, leading to further destabilization, violence and food shortages. 

What is the role of the courts?

Ahilan Arulanantham, an attorney arguing on behalf of TPS holders from Syria, said one of the questions the justices will be presented with is whether the courts have any role in making sure that the federal government complies with making TPS decisions, such as making sure that the country determinations are made in coordination with relevant agencies. 

He added that the Trump administration is not coordinating with the State Department to evaluate country conditions, which he argues is not following proper administrative procedure.

“You’ll hear a lot of talk in the Supreme Court argument about whether we’re challenging a determination with respect to TPS decisions, and that’s because there’s a provision of the TPS statute which says there’s no judicial review of any determination with respect to a termination of TPS,” Arulanantham said to reporters.

Arulanantham is also the co-director at the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law.

He said that the Trump administration is arguing about that TPS statue and whether the courts have any say.

“We think it means that the courts are not allowed to second-guess decisions about whether countries are safe,” he said. “The government thinks it means that … the courts aren’t allowed to look at any of this and that any decision they make, any rule that they set for TPS, is immune from review entirely.”

In briefs to the high court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has argued that the lower courts should not interfere with the DHS secretary’s decision.

Arulanantham said there’s a “huge amount” at stake in the Trump administration’s argument about review of TPS designations. 

“If the government is correct, then they can terminate TPS without conducting any country conditions review at all,” he said. “They can do it for reasons that are completely arbitrary.”

Other TPS decisions

This is not the first time a TPS case has appeared before the justices during the second Trump administration. 

The high court twice allowed the Trump administration to remove TPS for more than 300,000 of the 600,000 Venezuelans in the program. Because those decisions were made on an emergency basis, the justices did not give any legal reasoning before sending the cases back to the lower courts. 

Federal judges have often cited the lack of opinion from the high court when issuing a ruling to block the Trump administration from ending TPS designation from other countries. 

Wednesday’s oral arguments will be the first time the justices will hear a TPS case and give a decision on their ruling about the Trump administration’s move to revoke protections. 

Former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne died Friday night after battling colon cancer, his family announced through the governor’s office.

Kempthorne, 74, also served as a member of the U.S. Senate and the mayor of Boise during a nearly 25-year career in public office. 

In a written statement issued Saturday, Kempthorne’s family said he died Friday night surrounded by the people he loved most.

“Beyond his public service, he was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather whose greatest joy came from time spent with family and the people he met along the way,” Kempthorne’s family wrote. “He had a rare gift for truly seeing others — remembering names, stories, and the small details that made each person feel known and valued.”

Several Idaho political leaders praised Kempthorne’s record of public service and commitment to Idaho.

“He was a political unicorn,” Lt. Gov. Scott Bedke said in an interview Wednesday, referring to the mix of city, state and federal offices that Kempthorne held. “That doesn’t happen very often.” 

“He left his mark on Idaho,” Bedke added. 

Kempthorne, a Republican who was born in San Diego, California, served as the 30th governor of Idaho from 1999 to 2006. 

Kempthorne resigned as governor in 2006 after President George W. Bush nominated Kempthorne to serve as the U.S. secretary of the interior – a position he held until 2009.

On Saturday, Idaho Gov. Brad Little issued an order calling for U.S. and Idaho flags to be flown at half-staff in honor of Kempthorne until the day after his funeral, which has yet to be scheduled.

“(Idaho First Lady) Teresa (Little) and I are deeply saddened by the passing of our dear friend, Gov. Dirk Kempthorne,” Little wrote on Saturday. “Our friendship goes back to our college days, where Dirk and I shared the same state government class – an experience that helped set the course for a lifetime of public service for him.”

Little called Kempthorne, and his wife Patricia, “dedicated and passionate leaders.”

“Dirk’s career was marked by extraordinary service at every level,” Little wrote. “His early work as an industry advocate and campaign manager for Phil Batt led to his leadership as a successful Boise mayor who helped change the trajectory of our capital city. During his distinguished tenure in the U.S. Senate, Dirk served Idaho with vision, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to doing what was right.”

“As Governor, Dirk left an enduring mark on our state,” Little added. “With Patricia’s steadfast partnership, he championed children and families, strengthened public education, and led transformational investments in our transportation system that will benefit Idahoans for generations. He elevated Idaho’s voice on the national stage as chairman of the National Governors Association.”

On Saturday, U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, described Kempthorne as a close friend who leaves behind an enduring legacy of service. 

“Dirk Kempthorne was one of Idaho’s most distinguished public servants and my dear friend of over 40 years,” Simpson wrote Saturday. “Dirk’s career was a testament to selfless dedication, from the halls of local government as mayor and governor to national service as senator and secretary. I join Idahoans today in mourning the loss of Dirk, but also feel immense gratitude for his decades of service, loyalty, and the lasting impact he has had on Idaho and America. I am grateful for Dirk’s service to our state and nation, as well as his friendship all these years. To Patricia, his wife, and their children, Kathy and I extend our deepest condolences. May he rest in peace.”

In a statement released Saturday, U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said Kempthorne served as a mentor when Crapo prepared to fill his seat in the U.S. Senate.

“Gov. Kempthorne’s leadership and vision helped shape the state of Idaho for generations,” Crapo wrote. “From his time as mayor of Boise to his tenure as governor, and later, U.S. secretary of the interior, he worked tirelessly to preserve the natural beauty and resources that define Idaho and the American West.  His legacy is rooted in public service, with a decades-long body of work dedicated to improving the lives of others.”

Dirk Kempthorne’s policies affected Idaho water rights, transportation infrastructure

During his time in office in Idaho, Kempthorne “laid the groundwork for water modeling and was a visionary transportation planner,” Bedke said. 

In 2004, Kempthorne and then-Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee Chairman Anthony Johnson announced the Snake River Water Rights Agreement, which resolved water rights claims in the Snake River Basin, according to the Idaho Department of Water Resources. 

In 2006, Kempthorne signed into law a bill that authorized the state’s first sale of Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle, or GARVEE, bonds to finance major transportation projects. 

“I think the whole Treasure Valley owes him a huge debt of gratitude because he pushed the GARVEE program way back when,” Bedke said. “If not for GARVEE, we would be paying as we go to expand the freeway system in the Treasure Valley.” 

Bedke said Kempthorne held everyone’s feet to the fire, legislatively, until the measure passed, and the program has allowed the state to expand Interstate 84.

Last year, the U.S. Navy honored Kempthorne by naming the engine room on the USS Idaho submarine after him. 

U.S. Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, announced the naming honor, pointing out that the USS Idaho is powered by a nuclear reactor pioneered at Idaho National Laboratory. 

“Dirk’s contributions to our great state and our nation are significant,” Risch said in a written statement.  “His leadership and dedication to the USS Idaho Commissioning Committee is a true testament to Dirk’s resounding love for the Gem State.”

“It was my great honor to request the USS Idaho’s Engine Room be named for my dear friend and Idaho’s former governor, Dirk Kempthorne,” Risch added. 

Overall, Kempthorne was a strong public speaker, a good administrator and an effective fundraiser, Bedke said. 

“He’s a good guy,” Bedke said. “He’s a good public speaker, and that’s because he was uber prepared. He practiced a lot.”

Information about memorial services was not immediately available Saturday morning. Kempthorne’s family said additional details will be shared in the coming days. 

“Our family is heartbroken, but we are also deeply grateful — for the time we had with him and for the extraordinary outpouring of love and support we have received from across Idaho and the country,” Kempthorne’s family wrote Saturday. 

This story was originally produced by Idaho Capital Sun, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

By Jacques Abou-Rizk/Medill News Service

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Some time since President Donald Trump’s second term began, the White House removed a reference to April’s Arab American Heritage Month from its website. 

Former President Joe Biden’s 2024 proclamation now only exists in internet archives. As the month nears a close, Trump has ignored what many Arab Americans see as recognition for their contributions in America. 

Despite that snub, and even as the war in the Middle East continues, communities across the country celebrated the ninth annual National Arab American Heritage Month, including in Alexandria, Virginia, recently.

Amal and Warren David, co-founders of the Arab America Foundation, a 501(c)(3) dedicated to promoting Arab heritage, brought together hundreds of Arab American leaders, professionals, artists and activists in the Washington, D.C., suburb on April 16 for the national commemoration.

“We want to be joyful. We want to say we stand tall,” Amal David said to the couple hundred guests dressed in tuxedos and authentic Arab clothing at the Belle Haven Country Club. “Of course, we feel with our people, but it’s a form of showing resiliency.” 

The night brought together the diversity of the Arab American community. Members have roots in 22 nations in the Middle East and North Africa that speak Arabic and make up the Arab world. 

More than 3 million Arab Americans live in the United States today, approximately 134,000 of them in Virginia, the 10th-highest Arab population in the country. While more than 90% of Arabs worldwide are Muslim, nearly two-thirds of Arab Americans identify as Christian. 

Biden vs. Trump administration

Before Trump took office in 2025, Biden recognized the holiday every year of his term.

For example, in 2022, five years after the Arab America Foundation designated the month and began pushing for federal recognition, the Biden administration, Congress, the State Department and 48 states all recognized April as Arab American Heritage Month. 

But by 2026, the numbers had diminished. More than 30 states and 18 cities or towns, including Alexandria, released their own Arab American Heritage Month proclamations as of April 17. Only five states have permanent statutes for the April celebration. 

Amal David said the Arab America Foundation approached the Trump administration last year in hopes that he would issue a proclamation, but the group did not hear back. On April 15, U.S. Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Debbie Dingell, both Michigan Democrats, also re-introduced a resolution to recognize April as National Arab American Heritage Month at the federal level. 

The White House did not respond to a request for comment. 

In attendance at the Alexandria celebration was Arlington Councilman Abdel Elnoubi, an Egyptian American. He said he was not surprised with the lack of federal recognition from the Trump administration, but it’s part of the reason he continues to promote Arab Americans.

“I think especially with what’s happening in the world right now, it’s even more important and critical for us Arab Americans to be present, to be part of the conversation, to show our heritage and to show our contributions to this society more and more,” Elnoubi said. “Because the more people get to know you, the less they fear.” 

Arab Americans have made profound contributions across science, technology and the arts. Dr. Michael DeBakey, a Lebanese American, invented the artificial heart, Farouk El-Baz, an Egyptian American, pioneered the use of space photography, and Dr. Mona Hanna, an Iraqi American, helped expose the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. 

This year’s national celebration in Alexandria starred Yasmin Elhady, comedian and host of Hulu’s “Muslim Matchmaker.” The night was emceed by Emmy Award-winning journalist Ameera David, with music by vocalists Usama Baalbaki and Nibal Malshi. The two performed Arab classics alongside Alexandria Poet Laureate Emerita Zeina Azzam, a Palestinian American. 

Trump appointments

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee noted in April 2025 that the Trump administration had exceeded previous presidents in the number of Arab Americans in senior positions. 

Notably, Martin Makary, a British American of Lebanese background, leads the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Massad Boulos, a Lebanese American, is the president’s senior adviser on Arab and Middle Eastern Affairs. According to the Arab American Institute, Trump received 43.2% of the Arab American vote in 2024. 

“Having Arab Americans at the table brings needed perspective and strengthens decisions that impact all communities,” a statement from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee last year read. “We look forward to working with current and future appointments of highly-qualified Arab American professionals in the Trump administration, and we encourage the administration to continue this trend.” 

However, some Arab Americans cautioned that the U.S. role in warfare in the Middle East runs counter to their desire for peace in the region. 

Iran is not an Arab nation, but many Arab nations have been brought into the conflict. The U.S. government assists Israel’s military more than any other country, including $3.8 billion allocated annually through 2028. Israel bombed Lebanon, an Arab nation, earlier this month until a ceasefire was announced. 

“We deserve to see a stable, peaceful Middle East, and unfortunately our government continues with involvement over there and has not helped and has not brought us closer to that,” Elnoubi said. “So I really hope to start seeing a shift in our foreign policy.”

Issam Andoni, chairman of the Arab America Foundation board of directors, said Arab Americans have succeeded because they support one another.

“While it (may) look simple, I know very well that every one of you knows how hard it is,” Andoni said. “We come from different countries. We have different backgrounds. We have different beliefs … but as Arab Americans, we decide to come together and unite ourselves.” 

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs reports that it annually provides about 7  million medical appointments to America’s military veterans. Qualified and dedicated VA healthcare providers make this work. Sally was one of them. 

The VA has medically treated three generations of my family: My late father, a World War II combat veteran; me, a Gulf War combat veteran, and my wife’s and my son, a  Marine Corps veteran. Except for two unfortunate noncritical incidents, during the years the VA has provided excellent to outstanding medical care for my family and me. My wife also retired from 20 years serving in the VA’s pharmacy. Given all this, my family and I have a good take on VA care. 

Even today, a couple times a month, I will go unannounced to the Billings VA medical clinic and wander around to observe conditions and talk with my fellow veterans. I call it management-by-wandering or MBW. That’s my leadership style. Sometimes you must check on things yourself. 

Sally (not her real name) was my health care provider at the Billings VA. Sally was a “nurse prac” or nurse practitioner — a highly trained registered nurse. This lady, a pixy of a gal with a light-hearted smile and a bounce in her stride, was a veritable steam engine of energy. Hands down she knew her profession. A true daughter of Montana,  Sally was tough as saddle leather and 100% dedicated to veterans and their care.  A decades-long VA healthcare provider, she began as an emergency room nurse and worked her way up the VA healthcare career ladder. She had a sterling reputation among local veterans, including staying long after hours to ensure a veteran got the care the veteran needed. This nurse prac, all 90 pounds of her soaking wet, was aces. 

A while back, I had a relentless rib-breaking dry cough. I couldn’t shake it. I went to the Billings VA clinic hoping I could get a rare walk-in appointment. I told the front  desk that, if necessary, I would wait all day to be seen. 

Expecting to wait a long time in the lobby, I found the veterans’ free-of-charge coffee pot and poured myself hot coffee: The kind of distilled 3-day-old drill sergeant bilge that might cure your cough but will dissolve the enamel on your teeth.  Before I had time to sit Sally appeared around the corner. With her ever-present bounce she waved at me and hollered, “Come on in, Ed!”

“Sally, I will not bump a  veteran who has an appointment,” I said.

“Ed, we build in no-shows into the  schedule, I can see you now,” she said 

She took her time with me, triaging my hacking and coughing. No X-rays were needed and she prescribed medication. The cough disappeared in a few days. For Sally’s exceptional service and dedication during the years, I wanted to  nominate her for the VA’s healthcare-provider-of-the year award. But I heard that she, a  modest person, had declined the nomination. She truly had earned commendation, especially in the hearts of many Billings veterans. 

Some time ago Sally retired from about thirty years with the VA. When I heard she was retiring I recommended that in some way, the federal government officially commend her for her service. I hope the government did. 

Even today, people hear of the not-so-good things about VA care. Yes, the VA  isn’t perfect, but for every negative I can find 10 positives. The VA is not sterling, but it will rival anything a veteran can get downtown. 

People make the VA work. Care givers like Sally go unheralded with the VA. But I assure you this, at day’s end veterans remember those who cared. Sally truly was one  of them who sincerely cared. We veterans thank her.