Montana High Court Limits State Attorney General's Control Over County Legal Teams
The ruling allows Gallatin County to proceed with a lawsuit regarding the sharing of confidential criminal records with federal immigration officials.
By Nadia Rahman ·
The Montana Supreme Court issued a decision on Thursday that empowers local prosecutors to challenge state directives. The court ruled that the state Attorney General cannot dictate legal advice given by a county attorney when that official serves as a legal adviser to the county. This finding directly impacts a dispute over how confidential criminal justice data is handled in Gallatin County.
The conflict began when the state sought to direct the Gallatin County Attorney's office. State Attorney General Austin Knudsen issued an order asserting supervisory authority over the county's legal counsel. The county argued that Knudsen exceeded his power by trying to control how the county attorney advised local government offices and employees regarding a specific data request.
The dispute centers on a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE sought confidential criminal justice information from the county. The core legal question is whether a county must provide these records without a court order if the requesting entity is considered a criminal justice agency under state law.
In its order, the Supreme Court found that Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell has standing to seek a declaratory ruling on the issue. The justices determined that Knudsen's attempt to supervise the county attorney's work was unenforceable because the county attorney was acting in her capacity as the county's legal adviser. The court granted Cromwell's petition in part, clearing the way for the county to move forward with its legal challenge.
The court did not decide the final question of whether counties can share the information with ICE. The justices ordered both parties to submit briefs by December 7, 2026. These filings must address whether ICE qualifies as a criminal justice agency under Montana law and if that status automatically grants access to confidential records.
The decision effectively removes the state Attorney General from the immediate chain of command in this specific legal matter. The county can now argue its position on data sharing without the state directing its legal strategy. The next step in the process is the written briefs due in December.
