Senate Bill 97, introduced by Senator John Fuller, would establish venue rules for lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of recently enacted laws, directing those challenges to the judicial district of the bill's primary sponsor in many cases.

Sponsor rationale

Fuller said the bill responds to what he called "judge shopping" and argued that a sponsor's home district has a direct interest in a law they proposed and should host initial constitutional challenges. He told the committee the bill seeks to place venue for early constitutional review in the district where the sponsoring legislator represents the people who initiated the legislation.

Opposition and constitutional concerns

A wide set of opponents testified against the bill. Tribal representatives (Blackfeet and Rocky Boy), the ACLU of Montana, the Montana Environmental Information Center, the Montana Trial Lawyers Association and other practitioners said SB 97 would deny convenient and impartial access to courts, place undue travel and cost burdens on ordinary Montanans (including remote reservation communities), and risk allowing localized politics to influence constitutional review.

The ACLU said district courts have constitutional original jurisdiction over civil matters and the Legislature may not arbitrarily limit venue for constitutional claims; it warned of increased cost burdens and poorer access to courts, particularly for rural or reservation litigants.

Practical concerns

Opponents gave hypotheticals: plaintiffs challenging a land-use or notice requirement that affected their county should be able to sue where the controversy and witnesses are located; forcing suits to a sponsor's county could move cases hundreds of miles away and impose repeated travel costs on parties and witnesses. Environmental and tribal groups emphasized that venue rules often exist to ensure the court is near the contested facts and witnesses.

Outcome

The committee recorded opponents' arguments and questions for the sponsor. Fuller argued standing and defined challenge scope in the bill but the hearing closed with no committee vote in the reported transcript.

Ending

Opponents urged a no vote; they said the bill would make constitutional challenges more costly and less accessible and could impair the impartial administration of justice. The sponsor rebutted and urged the committee to pass the bill.