Pro-Life Group Files in District Court After Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Abortion Amendment

BILLINGS — The Montana Family Foundation has filed a new legal challenge in Yellowstone County District Court seeking to nullify Constitutional Initiative 128, the abortion rights amendment approved by Montana voters in November 2024.

The complaint, filed Monday in the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court, comes after the Montana Supreme Court declined to hear the case on original jurisdiction in July, citing lack of urgency and insufficient factual support.

Constitutional Ballot Requirements at Issue

The legal challenge centers on Article XIV, Section 9(3) of the Montana Constitution, which the plaintiffs argue requires the full text of proposed constitutional amendments to appear on election ballots. According to the complaint, CI-128 violated this requirement because voters saw only a summary of the amendment rather than its complete text.

“Article XIV, section 9(3) of the Montana Constitution provides: ‘At that election, the proposed amendment shall be submitted to the qualified electors for approval or rejection,'” the complaint states. “The Montana Constitution requires that ‘the proposed amendment’ be submitted to the qualified electors, and any statutory requirement for an explanatory statement, ballot issue statement, or some other summary of the amendment cannot be interpreted as a replacement for ‘the proposed amendment’ itself.”

Supreme Court Previously Rejected Case

The Montana Supreme Court dismissed the group’s original petition for original jurisdiction on July 1, 2025, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated adequate urgency or emergency factors to bypass normal trial court procedures.

In its order, the Supreme Court noted that the alleged violations occurred on November 5, 2024, but the Defense Fund “waited seven months to file this petition.” The court found “any urgency or emergency that exists is entirely of the Defense Fund’s own making.”

The Supreme Court also rejected the group’s argument that election-day registrants were denied equal protection because they did not receive copies of the Voter Information Pamphlet (VIP) containing the full text of CI-128. The court noted that Montana law provides multiple ways for voters to access the complete text of constitutional initiatives, including pre-election newspaper publication, the Secretary of State’s website, and copies available at each polling location on Election Day.

Historical Precedent Claims

The complaint traces Montana’s constitutional amendment process back to the 1970s, arguing that the first citizen-initiated constitutional amendments in 1974 and 1976 included the full text on ballots alongside explanatory statements by the Attorney General.

“From 1978 onward, each official ballot containing a proposed constitutional amendment appears to be constitutionally deficient because each ballot has lacked the full text of the amendment required by Article XIV, section 9 of the Montana Constitution,” the complaint alleges.

The legal challenge references the Montana Supreme Court’s 1987 decision in State ex rel. Montana Citizens for the Preservation of Citizens’ Rights v. Waltermire, which declared a constitutional initiative void due to improper publication procedures.

Parties and Intervention

The case, titled Montana Life Defense Fund v. State of Montana, initially named Hannah Rhodes and Joe Addy as individual petitioners alongside the Defense Fund. Both Rhodes and Addy registered to vote on Election Day 2024 and claim they were denied adequate opportunity to review the full text of CI-128.

Doctor Samuel Dickman, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, the ACLU of Montana, and Forward Montana were granted intervention by the Montana Supreme Court to defend the initiative.

CI-128 Background

Constitutional Initiative 128, approved by 57.6% of Montana voters in November 2024, amended the Montana Constitution to establish “a right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion.” The amendment took effect July 1, 2025.

The Montana Family Foundation, which organized the Montana Life Defense Fund ballot committee, has characterized the amendment as allowing “abortion up to the moment of birth” and eliminating “every protection for the unborn.”

Derek J. Oestreicher, the Montana Family Foundation’s chief legal counsel, represents the plaintiffs in the case. In a fundraising email sent Monday, Oestreicher wrote: “While the Montana Supreme Court recently declined to hear our challenge in an original proceeding, we are not deterred. That decision was justice delayed—but it will not be justice denied.”

Legal Standards and Precedent

The plaintiffs face significant legal hurdles in their constitutional challenge. The Montana Supreme Court’s July order noted that the Montana Constitution and state statutes provide several mechanisms for voters to access the full text of proposed amendments, including mandatory publication in newspapers, the Voter Information Pamphlet, and copies available at polling places.

“Due process is satisfied if the voters are informed by or with the ballot of the subject of the amendment, are given a fair opportunity by publication to consider its full text, and are not deceived by the ballot’s words,” the Supreme Court wrote, citing the Waltermire precedent.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation appears to focus on ensuring voters have meaningful access to information rather than strict textual compliance. In their view, the constitutional requirement is satisfied when voters can learn “the subject of the amendment” from the ballot and have “fair opportunity by publication to consider its full text” through other means—such as newspaper publication, the Secretary of State’s website, or copies available at polling locations. Under this reading, the phrase “the proposed amendment shall be submitted” in Article XIV, Section 9(3) is fulfilled as long as voters are adequately informed about what they’re voting on, even if the complete legal text doesn’t appear on the ballot itself.

However, the Montana Family Foundation counters that the Supreme Court’s reasoning misses the constitutional requirement itself. In their complaint, they cite the Waltermire precedent more broadly, arguing that “the people may amend the constitution by initiative only in the manner provided by the constitution.” They contend that allowing statutory summaries to replace the actual constitutional text would “constitute an amendment to the Constitution” itself, violating the principle that constitutional requirements cannot be circumvented by legislative action.

The plaintiffs argue that while alternative access methods may satisfy due process concerns, they do not address what they see as the plain language requirement of Article XIV, Section 9(3) that “the proposed amendment” itself—not a summary—be submitted to voters on the ballot.

The case will now proceed through the standard district court process, where the State of Montana and intervening organizations are expected to file responses to the complaint.