Lawsuit Against Montana Immigration Enforcement Leans on Judicial Activism, Not Constitutional Text

HELENA, MT — A Flathead nonprofit organization that assists immigrants has filed a lawsuit seeking to block Montana’s recently passed immigration enforcement law, making constitutional claims that rely on judicial interpretations rather than the actual text of the Montana Constitution.

The lawsuit, filed in state court, challenges House Bill 278, which requires law enforcement officers to check immigration status during lawful stops when they have reasonable suspicion and report undocumented individuals to federal authorities. The bill was signed into law by Governor Gianforte on April 16, 2025, and took effect on October 1st.

The Constitutional Claims

The plaintiff, Valley Neighbors of the Flathead, argues that Montana’s Constitution requires a higher standard called “particularized suspicion” for investigatory stops, making HB 278’s “reasonable suspicion” standard unconstitutional.

However, the Montana Constitution’s Article II, Section 11 contains no mention of “particularized suspicion.” The constitutional text states simply that “The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures” — identical language to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The “particularized suspicion” standard cited by the plaintiffs comes entirely from Montana Supreme Court decisions interpreting the constitution, not from the constitutional text itself. Montana judges created this higher standard through case law, choosing to interpret the same constitutional language more restrictively than federal courts.

Questionable Claims of Harm

Among the more unusual arguments in the 22-page complaint is a claim by Valley Neighbors that HB 278 has forced them to divert funds from their general activities to create “a new program providing financial assistance to immigrants for vehicle repair.”

The organization argues this car repair program was necessary “to ensure community members are in compliance with traffic laws, in response to the increase in law enforcement vehicle stops targeting immigrants.”

Legal experts note that organizational harm from voluntary spending decisions typically does not establish the direct injury required for legal standing in constitutional challenges.

The lawsuit cites several traffic stop incidents from April, July, and September 2025 involving Whitefish Police and Montana Highway Patrol as evidence that law enforcement is already conducting immigration investigations in anticipation of HB 278, which took effect October 1.

Previous Immigration Enforcement Coverage

Western Montana News has extensively covered immigration enforcement in the state through U.S. Attorney press releases announcing prosecutions and sentencings. Recent cases have included multiple Mexican nationals sentenced for illegal reentry after previous deportations, with some individuals representing their third or fourth removal from the United States.

These cases often involve traffic stops where law enforcement discovered the individuals’ immigration status, demonstrating that immigration violations are frequently uncovered during routine police work.

The Broader Legal Context

The lawsuit represents the latest challenge to Montana’s immigration enforcement efforts. In February, Attorney General Austin Knudsen signed an agreement with the Trump administration allowing Montana Highway Patrol troopers and state agents to assist federal immigration enforcement.

The lawsuit also represents the latest challenge to legislation passed by Montana’s elected representatives. Montana’s courts have previously struck down several laws passed by the Legislature, including measures related to election integrity and keeping biological males out of women’s restrooms and sports.

If successful, this lawsuit would represent another instance where judge-made constitutional interpretations override democratic legislative action. The Montana Supreme Court would be asked to invalidate HB 278 based on the “particularized suspicion” standard that previous justices created through case law rather than constitutional mandate.

What’s Next

The case will proceed through Montana’s court system, where judges will decide whether the Legislature’s immigration enforcement law can stand or whether judicial interpretation of identical constitutional language should take precedence over elected officials’ policy choices.

HB 278 was sponsored by Representative Nelly Nicol and passed with support from lawmakers who argued it would give law enforcement clear authority to cooperate with federal immigration authorities during lawful stops.

The immigration activist organization is represented by Upper Seven Law, attorneys who specialize in constitutional challenges to state legislation.