[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6303294,"mediaKeyId","2473448-1082ee04214182959d6f4ea172fe4ecb","parentId",2473448,"title","Senate Judiciary hears hours of testimony on SJ 15 urging Supreme Court to revisit Obergefell; committee tables resolution","audioSeconds",1481,"startMs",9285000,"endMs",10766000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2473448-1082ee04214182959d6f4ea172fe4ecb&start=9285&end=10766","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2473448-1082ee04214182959d6f4ea172fe4ecb/thumbnail_9285000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6303294/Montana/Senate-Judiciary-hears-hours-of-testimony-on-SJ-15-urging-Supreme-Court-to-revisit-Obergefell-committee-tables-resolution","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6303294-95684d2758c48d24e544824e3ffc4c8f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145575&Signature=HiEwLH8N4gGJMQvCymrqgyCQ~XnKM9g3sONjfQSIdS1kfPVBQ4syLipKkHmJARMHAEe3K0pi19Eqtk0KSHT5FTpkQ2e96ZJynwjpZeyHcDGeCijf-j~KdhNaxNYn9aC4qmykplve~wY9qoxBNDmmvSj8b0EsIAZ8l93aDj68zrzdOzaHN6cLjMpq9j6VdwNV0OrfEa9zpe-4eEIHIvogcPrAuAUuiJ3L5BDhx5unJyiDS3jlWqdlgXV-bcsYCEMrpmtqtg6WhBTnl9Dvbu3uo8NWGeR5kJoa2m-F2rs7pCMhpE4eeseQLXVivG~m~Nbq1oPHXwtiLCXQf-eTfhPnmg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-03T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Joint Resolution 15, carried in the hearing by Senator Bob Phelan, calls on the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges and to return the question of marriage definition to the states. Phelan told the committee he views Obergefell as an \"illegitimate overreach\" and said that Montana voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 (CI‑96) defining marriage in state law.

The hearing drew a large public turnout and extensive online sign‑ups; proponents argued the resolution defends state sovereignty and longstanding understandings of marriage, while opponents said the issue is settled law, that the resolution would cause real harm, and that the committee’s time would be better spent on other policy matters.

Proponents’ remarks included constitutional arguments and personal testimony emphasizing traditional marriage and religious liberty. Sponsor Bob Phelan said Obergefell \"is at odds with the Constitution of the United States and the principles on which The United States was established.\" Proponents cited CI‑96 (2004 Montana initiative) as evidence Montana voters had spoken.

Opponents included dozens of individual Montanans and representatives of organizations who described concrete family‑level harms and constitutional protections. SK Rossi of the Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence said, \"This issue is settled,\" and urged lawmakers to reject the resolution; other opponents described the practical legal and personal consequences of revoking recognition of same‑sex marriages.

Several speakers recounted personal experiences: couples, parents and children spoke about legal and caregiving benefits that marriage provides. Some opponents noted that Obergefell relied on substantive due process precedent and warned that the resolution’s rhetoric could be used to challenge other unenumerated rights.

Committee action: After extended testimony, the committee took a motion to give the resolution a do‑pass recommendation; that motion failed on roll call. Senators then voted on a motion to table SJ 15; the motion to table passed 6–2. The chair announced the resolution is tabled.

What it means: Tabling keeps the resolution from moving forward. The hearing captured a sharply divided public and underscored the political sensitivity and legal complexity around marriage equality, federal precedent and state‑level approaches.

Vote details recorded in committee: initial motion to pass did not carry; motion to table passed 6–2.

Next steps: SJ 15 is tabled in Senate Judiciary. The public testimony is part of the official committee record but the resolution will not advance unless the tabled status is later rescinded.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary - Mar 3, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Joint Resolution 15, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider Obergefell v. Hodges and return marriage definitions to the states, drew lengthy public testimony for and against. The Judiciary Committee ultimately tabled the resolution after a failed motion to pass it out of committee.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MT, Montana","taxId",77694,"location","Montana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6303299,"Panel advances cleanup to End of Watch Trust to tighten definitions, grant DOJ rulemaking",994,1420000,2414000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2473448-1082ee04214182959d6f4ea172fe4ecb&start=1420&end=2414","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2473448-1082ee04214182959d6f4ea172fe4ecb/thumbnail_1420000.jpg","/articles/6303299/Montana/Panel-advances-cleanup-to-End-of-Watch-Trust-to-tighten-definitions-grant-DOJ-rulemaking","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6303299-ab5d015c8372f73a70b882ed9b73820a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145575&Signature=EQ3~yGvwROczj27v0I28K~o8PKj-PYO51RZg00XPcpQavEqo0lToSDlU3zVCCcPfRPViwPG4ByFb85xSnbAKzX28cdXnwZsQJImdeBlFmMxBsl7VD5p92YIc6zS3rVnE3q5F50zb5Kq3iBXIAdq6MWNWlwSgL7bOrYue7vNtIRi07vTSBr3p7R-23zTBFs6EUlyhGQ3QtDzeTIXUxJBd-Xby~n3C~e~VjYarEQjfXYSMaXeTmVbaKmjB9BLOv~FKMY-I3jUmuYGi69ZIYFGnMW0yOhVS3bQ96CD9xL8HCqrxnc3q44m7QVBD6D-dmFNHrEWYFaWS084tYOElfy5VrA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Barry Usher, sponsor of Senate Bill 487, told the committee the legislation corrects language and fills gaps discovered while implementing last session’s End of Watch Trust. \"The End of Watch Trust was created to help the spouses and children of officers killed in the line of duty,\" Usher said, and SB 487 would clarify eligibility definitions, grant rulemaking authority to the Department of Justice and outline reporting expectations for the trust.

Proponents included representatives of the Montana Police Protective Association, the Association of Montana Troopers, the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, the Montana Association of Chiefs of Police, the Montana Association of Counties and the Department of Justice. Shelby DeMars of the Montana Police Protective Association summarized the bill as a set of necessary cleanup items identified during implementation and a product of extensive stakeholder collaboration.

Key clarifications in testimony:
- DOJ would have rulemaking authority to administer the trust.
- The bill narrows definitions of \"catastrophic injury,\" \"immediate family\" and \"in the line of duty\" to reduce ambiguity.
- The statute clarifies when payments stop and how benefits continue for eligible children who reach age limits.

Department of Justice counsel and the Department’s human resources officer appeared as informational witnesses and answered committee questions about payments, the trust principal and administrative fees. DOJ reported that payments had been issued to three families and that a fourth payment was being processed for a catastrophic injury case. Witnesses said the trust began with a $10 million appropriation and that interest earnings were intended to fund payments.

Senators voiced general support for the cleanup language. The committee voted to advance SB 487 by voice vote; the chair announced the motion passed.

What it means: SB 487 does not change the program’s substantive benefits but clarifies statutory language, governance, and administrative authority so the trust can operate as intended and minimize disputes about eligibility and payment processes.

Next steps: The bill passed out of committee and will move to the Senate floor.","Senate Bill 487, a cleanup to the End of Watch Trust program for families of officers killed or catastrophically injured, won committee support. The bill narrows some definitions, creates administrative clarifications and gives the Department of Justice rulemaking and appeals authority, supporters said.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6303304,"Committee tables bill clarifying legislative leaders' authority to file amicus briefs",7221,725000,7946000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2473448-1082ee04214182959d6f4ea172fe4ecb&start=725&end=7946","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2473448-1082ee04214182959d6f4ea172fe4ecb/thumbnail_725000.jpg","/articles/6303304/Montana/Committee-tables-bill-clarifying-legislative-leaders-authority-to-file-amicus-briefs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6303304-e984996a4ad5df5fc6a33b4474d1306f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145575&Signature=iivYtffmKzXuOSo6F4-D-Iv9QvxRDtf4cb-A87RGiw-9HVvOp4sz6C85LpTZCG3OV-wvHsC-mj929VQqXdEzpmmuYS5zkDvWjzBjhOPQnoOOrv5CqJc-FzuOaWxGNGtNS1x7c8~-8bKHgKVPfqT2OVAD4xWExnOO4xuE1PCerS5xkgGdH5LPYf0IIixr1E6RoSWcIDBxksR-C4Ooi-Chu4wCMa~Zo0Kp9JJ4wMTjSNOgKMABYRKkEqgN8EmmFY1Ov0nDyb5jfb3Y1eSTpj7Zl4RjAJud2TbKqZrycdrJfHvXYv1TXVJLl2Xzyv7yizIDIyTdrZh-TSNrafFZzQyvVw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Josh Kassmier, sponsor of Senate Bill 450, told the Judiciary Committee the measure would clarify that the legislative officers — the president of the Senate and the speaker of the House — may file amicus briefs in state and federal courts and use legislative funds or Legislative Council funds to do so.

\"The purpose of this bill is to clarify that legislative officers have the power to file amicus briefs with the state and federal courts,\" Kassmier said. He described a recent situation in which legislative leaders filed an amicus brief after litigation in the 2023 session and said the bill would avoid future disputes over authority.

Nonpartisan legal counsel presented a memo indicating the legislature already has authority to file amicus briefs; Senate President Regier and others said they believed existing rules allowed the practice. Senator Newman framed the bill as an unnecessary, political exercise after legal staff told the panel the power likely already exists.

Senator Ricky moved to table the bill; the committee voice‑voted to table SB 450. The committee recorded proxies and brief comment from the floor; the chair announced the motion to table passed and SB 450 was tabled.

What it means: The tabling prevents the bill from moving forward out of committee. Sponsors said they wanted statutory clarity; opponents and nonpartisan counsel said clarification may not be necessary because the authority to file amicus briefs already exists under current rules.

Next steps: The bill remains tabled in Judiciary.","Senate Bill 450, which would have expressly authorized the president and speaker to file amicus briefs in state and federal courts, drew debate about whether statute is needed. The Judiciary Committee tabled the bill on a voice vote after legal staff and several senators said existing authority is likely sufficient.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6303309,"Senate panel backs bill to create criminal penalty for failing legislative subpoenas",10039,269000,10308000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2473448-1082ee04214182959d6f4ea172fe4ecb&start=269&end=10308","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2473448-1082ee04214182959d6f4ea172fe4ecb/thumbnail_269000.jpg","/articles/6303309/Montana/Senate-panel-backs-bill-to-create-criminal-penalty-for-failing-legislative-subpoenas","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6303309-632b07fd12598fd77570c0cce31846b2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145576&Signature=WeD5YreghtHF4Sjls13vX2Rn2srfYUpBi5GjbONZ8nfR0UOj9BVSP7zukq9fO6Rk9sQZB4wDiRj6cspcVZPK1OsG~SZaTHo3iki3met5NRxs0c5OkXUepBTAs~3VMnb7HthQ-BrAZuHn1VWrjyiMKW98ic46w2fGiWt83rVJfOkBqW2uV1Fl9xJZaF6b9YzvbHQIyFb5ufBgwkqsdEkaw~CB-Pdso3RBp~kXv5DFAOWjvncOZnCZkGT~2-67S7b6Qgj3PMUfp9MM9Xdfafw6JNkNDxacHuVlkttlMvMJ~zeY20E9M3y8cY8JFrwPUUWzV35UHp2JiOF3norehyyQGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Sue Vinton, R- Senate District 20, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Senate Bill 457 would create a clear enforcement process for legislative subpoenas and allow the legislature to hold individuals in contempt when they refuse to comply.

\"Without enforcement, subpoenas are meaningless,\" Senator Vinton said in opening remarks, adding that the measure covers subpoenas issued during both regular session and interim committee work and would permit the legislature to issue a proclamation of contempt when not in session.

The bill would create criminal contempt proceedings for noncompliance, with misdemeanor-level penalties: fines up to $1,000 or up to 12 months in jail, according to language the sponsor read into the record. Vinton said the change was needed because interim committees increasingly request testimony and records and have lacked a uniform enforcement mechanism.

Committee members raised constitutional and policy concerns. Senator Olson asked why the measure makes noncompliance a crime rather than relying on civil contempt, saying, \"I'm wondering if we're not starting to skate a little bit on becoming, as government, a little bit too much.\" Senator Amrich asked whether other states face the same problem; Vinton said she had focused on Montana and had not done cross‑state research.

Vinton and other supporters pointed to long judicial recognition of legislative subpoena power; Vinton referenced McGrain v. Daugherty as fitting precedent noting Congress and legislatures have inherent oversight authority. She told the committee that the intent is to reclaim an effective backstop for oversight, not to expand legislative reach beyond existing subpoena authority.

The committee voted by roll call to forward the bill. The motion to give SB 457 a do‑pass recommendation passed 5–3.

What it means: If enacted as written, SB 457 would authorize the Montana Legislature to pursue misdemeanor contempt charges against witnesses who refuse to obey legislative subpoenas and would apply to both session and interim subpoena activity. The bill’s approach — criminal rather than purely civil enforcement — drew objections from several senators who favored caution given separation‑of‑powers and free‑speech concerns.

Next steps: The bill was reported out of committee with a do‑pass recommendation and will proceed to the Senate for further consideration.

","The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Senate Bill 457, sponsored by Senator Sue Vinton, to add an enforcement mechanism for legislative subpoenas, including misdemeanor penalties. Debate centered on whether criminal sanctions are appropriate and how the measure would apply to officials and judicial officers.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate Judiciary hears hours of testimony on SJ 15 urging Supreme Court to revisit Obergefell; committee tables resolution

Panel advances cleanup to End of Watch Trust to tighten definitions, grant DOJ rulemaking

Committee tables bill clarifying legislative leaders' authority to file amicus briefs

Senate panel backs bill to create criminal penalty for failing legislative subpoenas