New Montana Supreme Court case a win for transparency
In a major boost to Montanans’ constitutional right to know, the state Supreme Court ruled that citizens who successfully sue for public records are presumptively entitled to recover their attorney’s fees.
With this precedent, courthouse doors are more accessible to those who have been wrongfully denied their right to know.
Montana Environmental Information Center v. Governor changes the calculus for those seeking government transparency and for government officials and agencies withholding information. Going forward, when a citizen prevails in a right to know lawsuit, the starting assumption is that the government will compensate them for their costs — including attorney’s fees — in bringing the constitutional challenge.
“When a party succeeds in litigation based on a right to know request,” the court wrote, “it has performed a public service in ensuring that Montana's government is appropriately transparent and accountable to the people.”
This ruling centers on a fundamental truth: rights that are too expensive to enforce aren’t rights at all. For years, state agencies banked on the fact that watchdogs, journalists and ordinary citizens often can’t afford to assert their right to know in court. And district courts have long been inconsistent on when legal fees should be awarded, even when the government wrongfully withheld public documents.
The underlying dispute began in 2021, when environmental groups sought records from the Governor’s Office concerning the state’s decision to abandon enforcement against a mining company that had left Montana taxpayers with millions in cleanup costs.
After the state delayed and released only partial records, the groups sued and won an order requiring the Governor's Office to turn over all requested documents. But the lower court did not require the state to compensate the groups for their attorney's fees.
On appeal, our state Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that, unless the government can show a compelling reason not to, courts should generally award attorney’s fees to successful plaintiffs in right to know cases. The ruling doesn’t strip trial judges of all discretion. Courts can still deny fees in cases involving bad faith or other equitable concerns — but the burden is now on the state to explain why it shouldn’t have to pay.
The decision was not without dissent. Justice Jim Rice, joined by Chief Justice Cory Swanson, accused the majority of abandoning settled law in favor of political bias. But that critique finds little support in the majority’s carefully reasoned opinion, which roots its holding in longstanding precedent and the state constitution.
The ruling is a significant step forward for transparency advocates, and it builds on this year’s earlier district court decision in Saslav v. Howe reaffirming the public’s right to inspect legislative bill-drafting files.
Together, the decisions send a clear message: Montana’s right to know is not just symbolic, it has legal and financial teeth.
Ruben Castren, Montana Transparency Project