Happy Dancing here in Oregon. A woman in a class I am in moved her family to Montana because she did not like Oregon politics. I don't think you can run from love and inclusiveness. What a way to start my day!
I’m very pleased to hear that the Supreme Court of a state looked at its Constitution and interpreted it in a manner that it was intended to do when it was written. That is to say, defend freedom, rather than limit freedom. It conveys a wider meaning of the state’s byline of “Big Sky Country” rather than narrowing it. I hope other states and the Feds take note, and put the brakes on this anti-transgender nonsense that plagues us all, cis- and trans- alike, male and female.
When I shared this with a friend she said this one comment will forever stand out "As Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr described the law's impact, it impacts trans people “from the cradle to grave."
This is very good news, and it is good that the article addresses upfront the question that was likely on everyone’s minds - whether the federal SCOTUS can negate or overrule this.
So in practical terms, when can/will this ruling translate to an on-the-ground reality of trans Montanans being able to freely update their BCs and DLs at will?
Not sure about your second question, but SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to address a case that hinges on a state supreme court's interpretation of its own state constitution.
Montana’s Supreme Court has affirmed something fundamental: the state constitution is not optional, and its protections extend to everyone—including the transgender community. This decision is not just symbolic; it establishes a legal obligation for the state to uphold the dignity, safety, and equal rights of trans Montanans.
By recognizing that constitutional guarantees apply to gender identity, the court has made it clear that discrimination cannot be dressed up as policy or justified by politics. Montana is now bound to protect its trans residents—not selectively, not conditionally, but fully under the law.
This ruling reinforces a basic principle: rights enshrined in a constitution are not subject to public opinion or legislative convenience. They are guarantees. And in Montana, those guarantees now explicitly include the right of transgender people to live without discrimination and with equal protection under the law.
This case is a wonderful education on state vs. federal law. Who knew that Montana had one of the most progressive constitutions in the nation. This will set up quite a battle between Trump and Montana. I will happily buy tickets to watch this one!!!!
Welcome news!! Sharing with my family members in Montana. Thank you for the in-depth explanation. I am still confused by the term "suspect class" and need to do some reading. When Pete Hegseth decided unilaterally to fire transgender service members who were in good standing and had served for many years, how was that not treating trans folks as a "class"? Any links anyone cares to share on the subject much appreciated. I love this substack community -- thanks again, Erin and S.Baum. 🏳️⚧️
Here is a link to crash course’s US gov series. I think eps 4, 18-23, and 29-31 could be most helpful for this. I haven’t gone through them all but just glancing at the titles they should be relevant. All of them are pretty short and sweet and might give me a good review too! https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtOfse2ncvffeelTrqvhrz8H&si=LXLowZ9dx1bR3Anf
Maybe this explanation below will be helpful too, but if anyone thinks I’m wrong about something feel free to correct me! I learned a lot of this in my public health law class last semester so I’m far from the expert LOL!
There are different types of classes that enforce different levels of scrutiny for the Supreme Court (state or federal). In this case, trans people and their rights require strict scrutiny for Montana’s Supreme Court. Historically (and generally), a law that runs up against strict scrutiny (usually a law that is discriminatory to the relevant class) loses. Race and national origin I believe are commonly strict scrutiny. A class being required to have laws relevant to them interpreted with strict scrutiny offers a lot of protection because it means the law must explicitly address potential discrimination to that class and actively avoid discrimination when applying the law in practice. Lower forms of scrutiny don’t have this requirement, which opens the doors for discrimination or discrimination-lite. Not all classes of people automatically get strict scrutiny.
Another common and similar phrase is “protected class.” Gender/sex are interesting issues with scrutiny, and sometimes assessed separately or conflated, and often don’t make it to the level of strict scrutiny (kind of, imagine me doing the hand shake gesture for “ehhh”). This quasi-protection has contributed to very difficult legal battles for trans people who kind of blow up the concept of gender/sex as it’s historically been applied under the law. This makes Montana’s Supreme Court decision that much more progressive and important, as it solidifies trans people (1) as a unique class (I think) and (2) requiring the highest level of scrutiny which is not always afforded in other sex/gender class cases in the rest of the states or on the federal level.
This is GREAT news and, hopefully, a great leap forward toward the advancement and protection of the trans community, a model for other governments to replicate.
To be sure, in the best of all possible worlds, other states (and our federal government) ought to enshrine Montana’s concept of “Equal Protection,” “Individual Dignity,” and “Suspect Class” to their constitution and statutes. This could be the best path forward, a defining and efficacious salvo in the continued fight for full and equal rights of transgender persons.
Thank you, Montana!
(And thank you, Zooey and Erin, for your brave and tireless efforts!)
Ditto your last comment which also gives me the opening to repeat my contention that Zooey Zephyr is one of the greatest names ever to come out of the human mind. :-)
Such good news when there's so much bad news on a regular basis. Thank you for all of your reporting!!!
WOO HOO!!!
Hooray for Montana!
Thank you to the two trans women and their lawyers who brought this suit forward.
Happy Dancing here in Oregon. A woman in a class I am in moved her family to Montana because she did not like Oregon politics. I don't think you can run from love and inclusiveness. What a way to start my day!
I have an appointment at DMV tomorrow. Fingers crossed that it ends in a successful update on my license.
I’m very pleased to hear that the Supreme Court of a state looked at its Constitution and interpreted it in a manner that it was intended to do when it was written. That is to say, defend freedom, rather than limit freedom. It conveys a wider meaning of the state’s byline of “Big Sky Country” rather than narrowing it. I hope other states and the Feds take note, and put the brakes on this anti-transgender nonsense that plagues us all, cis- and trans- alike, male and female.
When I shared this with a friend she said this one comment will forever stand out "As Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr described the law's impact, it impacts trans people “from the cradle to grave."
I am very, very impressed with Eve rulings of the Montana Supreme Court.
This is fantastic news! Thanks, as always, for your fantastic reporting, Erin.
Halle-freakin'-lujah!!!!!
This is very good news, and it is good that the article addresses upfront the question that was likely on everyone’s minds - whether the federal SCOTUS can negate or overrule this.
So in practical terms, when can/will this ruling translate to an on-the-ground reality of trans Montanans being able to freely update their BCs and DLs at will?
Not sure about your second question, but SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to address a case that hinges on a state supreme court's interpretation of its own state constitution.
Montana’s Supreme Court has affirmed something fundamental: the state constitution is not optional, and its protections extend to everyone—including the transgender community. This decision is not just symbolic; it establishes a legal obligation for the state to uphold the dignity, safety, and equal rights of trans Montanans.
By recognizing that constitutional guarantees apply to gender identity, the court has made it clear that discrimination cannot be dressed up as policy or justified by politics. Montana is now bound to protect its trans residents—not selectively, not conditionally, but fully under the law.
This ruling reinforces a basic principle: rights enshrined in a constitution are not subject to public opinion or legislative convenience. They are guarantees. And in Montana, those guarantees now explicitly include the right of transgender people to live without discrimination and with equal protection under the law.
This case is a wonderful education on state vs. federal law. Who knew that Montana had one of the most progressive constitutions in the nation. This will set up quite a battle between Trump and Montana. I will happily buy tickets to watch this one!!!!
much needed good news.
Welcome news!! Sharing with my family members in Montana. Thank you for the in-depth explanation. I am still confused by the term "suspect class" and need to do some reading. When Pete Hegseth decided unilaterally to fire transgender service members who were in good standing and had served for many years, how was that not treating trans folks as a "class"? Any links anyone cares to share on the subject much appreciated. I love this substack community -- thanks again, Erin and S.Baum. 🏳️⚧️
Here is a link to crash course’s US gov series. I think eps 4, 18-23, and 29-31 could be most helpful for this. I haven’t gone through them all but just glancing at the titles they should be relevant. All of them are pretty short and sweet and might give me a good review too! https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtOfse2ncvffeelTrqvhrz8H&si=LXLowZ9dx1bR3Anf
Maybe this explanation below will be helpful too, but if anyone thinks I’m wrong about something feel free to correct me! I learned a lot of this in my public health law class last semester so I’m far from the expert LOL!
There are different types of classes that enforce different levels of scrutiny for the Supreme Court (state or federal). In this case, trans people and their rights require strict scrutiny for Montana’s Supreme Court. Historically (and generally), a law that runs up against strict scrutiny (usually a law that is discriminatory to the relevant class) loses. Race and national origin I believe are commonly strict scrutiny. A class being required to have laws relevant to them interpreted with strict scrutiny offers a lot of protection because it means the law must explicitly address potential discrimination to that class and actively avoid discrimination when applying the law in practice. Lower forms of scrutiny don’t have this requirement, which opens the doors for discrimination or discrimination-lite. Not all classes of people automatically get strict scrutiny.
Another common and similar phrase is “protected class.” Gender/sex are interesting issues with scrutiny, and sometimes assessed separately or conflated, and often don’t make it to the level of strict scrutiny (kind of, imagine me doing the hand shake gesture for “ehhh”). This quasi-protection has contributed to very difficult legal battles for trans people who kind of blow up the concept of gender/sex as it’s historically been applied under the law. This makes Montana’s Supreme Court decision that much more progressive and important, as it solidifies trans people (1) as a unique class (I think) and (2) requiring the highest level of scrutiny which is not always afforded in other sex/gender class cases in the rest of the states or on the federal level.
Thank you, Jack!! This will be super helpful!
My goodness and thank goodness!
This is GREAT news and, hopefully, a great leap forward toward the advancement and protection of the trans community, a model for other governments to replicate.
To be sure, in the best of all possible worlds, other states (and our federal government) ought to enshrine Montana’s concept of “Equal Protection,” “Individual Dignity,” and “Suspect Class” to their constitution and statutes. This could be the best path forward, a defining and efficacious salvo in the continued fight for full and equal rights of transgender persons.
Thank you, Montana!
(And thank you, Zooey and Erin, for your brave and tireless efforts!)
Ditto your last comment which also gives me the opening to repeat my contention that Zooey Zephyr is one of the greatest names ever to come out of the human mind. :-)
Fabulous news! Huzzah! 🎉 Thank you, Erin and Big Sky Country!