Senate Bill 44, presented by Senator Daniel Emmerich, would codify and define separation-of-powers principles in statute, including enumerated powers for the legislative, executive and judicial branches and definitions for the Board of Regents and the Board of Public Education. The sponsor said the measure is intended to clarify constitutional boundaries; opponents said it risks political interference in an independent judiciary.

Senator Emmerich told the Judiciary Committee the bill “is designed to create a uniform way of looking at our constitutional boundaries within the separation of powers,” and that the measure largely reflects powers already enumerated in the Montana Constitution. He said the draft was intended to give clearer guidance to state bodies and to reduce litigation over those boundaries.

Opponents urged the committee to reject the bill. Bruce Spencer of the State Bar argued that courts—not the Legislature—are the constitution’s interpreters and that the Legislature’s attempt to reframe judicial authority is improper. Spencer told the committee the State Bar “strongly urge[s] you to vote no on this bill” and recommended instead a petition to the Supreme Court if courts’ rules or practices need enforcement. Henry Seaton of the ACLU said rewriting separation-of-powers doctrine by statute would “put every Montanan in danger” by allowing policy majorities to undercut constitutional protections; Friends of the 3rd Branch and senior-advocacy groups raised similar concerns.

Supporters at the hearing included James King, who said statutory clarity was needed to address perceived judicial misconduct and to ensure officials follow statutes. Several opponents noted the bill was broad and would prompt constitutional litigation; the State Bar and other witnesses warned parts of the draft conflict with existing Montana Supreme Court decisions, particularly around the autonomy of the Board of Regents and judicial rulemaking authority. The State Bar and other witnesses also warned the bill could be used politically to pursue impeachment where members disagree with judicial rulings.

No committee vote was recorded at the hearing. Sponsor and opponents agreed the measure raises fundamental constitutional questions; committee members asked for more time to review the bill and its intersections with case law. The sponsor encouraged members to submit amendments and pledged to work with colleagues on refining the text.