Montana Supreme Court Strikes Down ‘Frivolous’ Challenge to Vaccine Choice Law

HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court unanimously struck down a years-long constitutional challenge to the state’s vaccine choice law Monday, delivering a scathing rebuke to a politically-connected law firm whose arguments the justices found essentially frivolous.

In a 7-0 decision delivered by Justice Beth Baker, the court affirmed House Bill 702, authored by Rep. Jennifer Carlson (R-Manhattan), which prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s vaccination status or possession of an immunity passport. The law bars employers, businesses, governmental entities, and public accommodations from treating people adversely based on their vaccination choices.

The ruling resolves a lengthy legal challenge brought by Netzer, Krautter & Brown law firm and attorney Donald L. Netzer. The Sidney-based law firm, which also has a Billings office, sued on its own behalf in October 2021, claiming HB 702 prevented them from requiring vaccinations to protect their employees and clients from COVID-19 and other vaccine-preventable diseases.

The firm argued they needed to maintain “a safe and healthful environment” for workers and clients, some of whom are elderly and immunocompromised, but that the new law violated multiple provisions of the Montana Constitution by preventing them from implementing vaccination requirements.

Key Provisions Upheld

The Supreme Court upheld two main components of HB 702:

Section 1 prohibits discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and access to services based on vaccination status. The court found this section clearly aligned with the bill’s stated purpose.

Section 4 prohibits requiring individuals to receive vaccines authorized for emergency use or undergoing safety trials. A district court had previously struck down this provision, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision, finding it properly connected to the law’s anti-discrimination purpose.

“Choosing not to obtain a certain vaccine is a ‘vaccination status,'” the court wrote. “Prohibiting a mandate for vaccines that have not completed safety trials reasonably relates to the purpose that those who abstain from such vaccines not suffer adverse consequences solely by that choice.”

In other words, employers, businesses, and government agencies cannot require people to get vaccines that are still experimental or authorized only for emergency use – such as the COVID-19 vaccines were initially, or future vaccines that haven’t completed full safety testing. This protects individuals who want to wait for complete safety data before making vaccination decisions.

Weak Constitutional Arguments

The Supreme Court delivered sharp criticism of the plaintiffs’ legal arguments, characterizing their challenge as poorly developed and lacking substance. Justice Baker’s opinion revealed the court’s frustration with Netzer’s approach: “It is not this Court’s job to conduct legal research on [a party’s] behalf, to guess as to [a party’s] precise position, or to develop legal analysis that may lend support to that position.”

Most tellingly, after years of litigation and multiple constitutional challenges, the court found that Netzer’s arguments essentially boiled down to one central claim: that “the Bill is improper because it was enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

This remarkably weak foundation for overturning a democratically enacted law prompted the court’s sharp rebuke. The justices noted that Netzer provided no substantive legal analysis to support their various constitutional challenges and failed to identify any specific facts that would change the outcome of their case.

The court observed that Netzer “elaborates no further” beyond their pandemic-timing argument, calling this “not enough to overcome the manifest accord between the plain language of the Bill’s title and the subjects” contained within it.

In essence, a Billings law firm spent years trying to invalidate popular legislation protecting Montanans’ vaccine choices based primarily on the timing of when lawmakers passed it during a public health emergency – an argument the court found wholly insufficient to meet the “heavy burden” of proving a law unconstitutional.

The unanimous decision suggests the justices viewed this challenge as essentially frivolous, with Netzer failing to meet the “heavy burden” required to prove a law unconstitutional “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Political Backgrounds of Challengers

The legal challenge was brought by Netzer, Krautter & Brown, a law firm with an interesting mix of political backgrounds among its attorneys.

Joel Krautter, one of the firm’s partners who filed the lawsuit, is a former Republican state legislator and Solutions Caucus member who served one term representing House District 35 from 2019-2021. Krautter lost his 2020 Republican primary to Brandon Ler, who criticized Krautter for his Medicaid expansion vote, support for bipartisan legislation that raised taxes, and backing infrastructure spending that authorized public debt. The Solutions Caucus was known for bipartisan cooperation and working across party lines.

The firm also employs James Reavis, a prominent Democratic activist who was recently criticized by former party executive board member Jesse James Mullen for his ho hum characterization of a major Democratic Party fraud scandal involving consultant Abbey Lee Cook, who embezzled over $250,000 from Democratic campaigns.

The firm sued on its own behalf, claiming they needed to maintain “a safe and healthful environment” for workers and clients, some of whom are elderly and immunocompromised, but that HB 702 prevented them from requiring vaccinations to protect against COVID-19 and other vaccine-preventable diseases.

Constitutional Challenge Rejected

The plaintiffs had challenged the law under several constitutional provisions, including claims that it violated Montanans’ inalienable rights, environmental protections, equal protection guarantees, and legislative requirements for clear bill titles.

The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, applying the standard presumption that legislative acts are constitutional unless proven otherwise “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

On the critical question of whether the bill’s title properly reflected its contents, the court applied a liberal construction standard, noting that the Legislature has broad discretion in crafting legislation.

The court explained that bill titles don’t need to be perfect – they just need to give lawmakers and the public a reasonable idea of what the legislation covers.

Complex Legal History

HB 702 has faced numerous legal challenges since its passage during the heated COVID-19 vaccination debate of 2021. Western Montana News extensively covered the legislation’s controversial journey through the courts.

The current case represents just one of several legal battles over the law. In a separate federal case, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy permanently blocked HB 702’s application to healthcare settings in December 2022, ruling that healthcare workers’ concerns about “medical privacy and health freedom” did not outweigh public interest in preventing disease spread.

Judge Molloy’s December 2022 ruling was particularly controversial among many Montanans who viewed it as forcing healthcare workers to choose between their jobs and their personal medical decisions. The ruling came after widespread statewide protests by healthcare workers across 10 Montana cities in late 2021.

Sara Ohara, a nurse at Community Medical Center in Missoula who helped organize the protests, said at the time: “We are rallying to say to them that we will not comply. We will not allow them to take our freedoms from us.” Another healthcare worker at Bozeman Health Deaconess expressed feeling “betrayed by hospital administration,” saying “I feel so used by my hospital organization… All of the emails about ‘gratitude’ toward employees feels so insincere now that they are ready take us out with the trash.”

The protests drew over a thousand participants across Montana cities, with healthcare workers facing termination if they refused vaccination requirements. Many nurses and healthcare staff felt abandoned by Molloy’s ruling, which effectively left them vulnerable to job loss despite the state’s attempt to protect them through HB 702.

The current Supreme Court case specifically addressed constitutional challenges to the state law itself, separate from the federal case where Judge Molloy ruled that HB 702 was “unconstitutional and preempted by federal law” in healthcare settings. Molloy found the law conflicted with federal disability accommodations, workplace safety requirements, and Medicare regulations.

In his ruling, Molloy dismissed healthcare workers’ concerns about “medical privacy and health freedom” and declared that “the public interest in protecting the general populace against vaccine-preventable diseases in health care settings using safe, effective vaccines is not outweighed by the hardships experienced to accomplish that interest.”

The law was enacted during the peak of COVID-19 vaccination requirements and immunity passport discussions, though HB 702’s language applies broadly to all vaccines, not just COVID-19 vaccines.

Scope and Exceptions

HB 702 includes specific exemptions for schools, daycare facilities, and healthcare facilities that comply with certain requirements. The law allows employers to recommend vaccinations and permits differentiated policies based on vaccination status, such as mask requirements, as long as they don’t rise to the level of discrimination.

According to state guidance, employers may request proof of vaccination and even offer incentives for vaccination, provided they are “not so substantial to be coercive.”

Broader Implications

The ruling represents a significant victory for vaccine choice advocates and establishes Montana as having some of the strongest legal protections against vaccination-based discrimination in the nation.

The decision comes at a time when debates over vaccination requirements continue in various contexts, from healthcare settings to educational institutions.

Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office defended the law throughout the litigation process. The plaintiffs were represented by Jared Wigginton of Good Steward Legal and Joel Krautter of Netzer, Krautter & Brown.

The November 4, 2025 decision concludes years of litigation over the controversial law, which supporters viewed as protecting individual choice while opponents argued it could undermine public health efforts.

The court emphasized that it expressed “no view on any other constitutional challenges or claims not properly presented,” leaving room for potential future legal challenges on different grounds.