Representative Lee Deming opened House Bill 30 saying the measure is designed “to apply a burden of proof or challenge the constitutionality of a legislative act,” arguing that statutes should be presumed constitutional unless proven otherwise by the highest standard.

Opponents told the committee the standard described in the bill—courts treating statutes as presumptively constitutional and requiring a high burden to overturn them—is already well established in Montana case law. Al Smith of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association told the panel the Montana Supreme Court routinely begins constitutional challenges with the statement that “statutes are presumptively constitutional,” and cited Rolfes v. Clemhagen (2009) and other precedents to argue the bill duplicates existing doctrine.

Henry Seaton of the ACLU of Montana opposed the bill on separation-of-powers grounds. “House Bill 30 puts the legislature’s thumb on the scales of justice and improperly invades the separation of powers,” Seaton said, arguing the measure would create new roadblocks for Montanans seeking relief in court.

Committee members engaged on whether the bill would change practice. Representative Staffman and others asked what specific problem the bill solves; Representative Deming said the statute codifies a standard to ensure consistent application in future cases. Representative Sharp asked what remedy would exist if courts did not apply the statutorily prescribed standard; Deming said impeachment could be a potential remedy but acknowledged practical limits.

Outcome: the hearing closed without committee action. Several members asked for more legal analysis and information, and opponents asked the sponsor to consider whether codifying an existing judicial standard was necessary.