B. McLaughlin v. MT Legislature
OP 21-0173
| Mont. | Jun 29, 2021Background
- Beth McLaughlin sought emergency relief (Apr. 12, 2021) to quash/stay legislative subpoenas and stop release of Judicial Branch emails produced by the Department of Administration (DOA).
- The Legislature issued an April 8 subpoena to DOA requesting Judicial Branch emails and an April 14 subpoena directly to McLaughlin seeking documents and state devices; the Court temporarily stayed legislative subpoenas for electronic judicial records.
- The Legislature subsequently withdrew the subpoena to McLaughlin (June 22, 2021) and moved to dismiss the case as moot.
- The Legislature already had obtained thousands of unredacted Judicial Branch emails from DOA before McLaughlin could secure judicial review; McLaughlin sought return or protection of those documents and to enjoin dissemination.
- The Court found the controversy remains live because the Legislature has not accounted for or returned the materials and because effective relief is still possible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness after Legislature withdrew subpoena to McLaughlin | Withdrawal does not moot dispute because issue is of public importance and likely to recur | Withdrawal moots the claim against the specific subpoena | Not moot; withdrawal falls within mootness exceptions and Court denied dismissal |
| Mootness as to documents already obtained by Legislature from DOA | Not moot — Legislature still possesses thousands of unredacted emails; Court can order return or other relief | Moot because subpoena withdrawn and controversy supposedly ended | Not moot; Court may grant effective relief regarding documents in Legislature’s possession |
| Public-interest exception applicability | Issue implicates separation of powers and guidance is needed for public officers; likely to recur | Dispute is resolved by withdrawal; no continuing controversy | Applies — matter is of public importance, likely to recur, and would guide officers’ duties |
| Voluntary-cessation exception applicability | Legislature may resume subpoenas; past unilateral conduct shows risk of repetition | Withdrawal shows cessation and should moot case | Applies — Legislature failed to meet heavy burden to show challenged conduct won’t recur |
Key Cases Cited
- Shamrock Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 293 Mont. 188, 974 P.2d 1150 (defines mootness and when relief is impossible)
- Havre Daily News, LLC v. City of Havre, 333 Mont. 331, 142 P.3d 864 (describes mootness exceptions: public interest, voluntary cessation, capable of repetition)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (party asserting mootness by voluntary cessation bears heavy burden)
- Walker v. State, 316 Mont. 103, 68 P.3d 872 (public-interest exception discussion)
- Gateway Opencut Mining Action Group v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 361 Mont. 398, 260 P.3d 133 (tests for public-interest exception)
- Ramon v. Short, 399 Mont. 254, 460 P.3d 867 (public importance and need for authoritative guidance)
- Brown v. Gianforte, 404 Mont. 269 (discussion on separation of powers issues)