Choteau Acantha v. Gianforte, 567 P.3d 302

In early 2023, a vacancy occurred in Montana's Ninth Judicial District. Governor Gianforte formed an Advisory Council comprised of attorneys and community leaders to interview applicants and recommend candidates.
The Advisory Council interviewed two judicial candidates in March 2023. Prior to the interviews, both applicants claimed privacy rights, and the Council's Chair, Stutz, closed the interviews and deliberation portions of the meeting to the public, over objections from attending journalists.
Petitioners, Choteau Acantha Publishing and Montana Free Press, filed suit, alleging this closure violated Montana's open meeting laws. They requested declarations that advisory councils are subject to open meetings and that the closure in this case was unlawful.
The District Court ruled in favor of Petitioners, holding judicial candidates had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their qualifications, the closure was improper, and the Council acted as a public body. It, however, denied voiding the Council's actions on practical grounds.
Respondents appealed, arguing the balancing of privacy versus public right to know wasn't properly conducted and that the broad ruling on candidate privacy rights was erroneous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the interviews and deliberations subject to open meetings law?	Council is a public body; meetings must be open absent specific, clearly outweighing privacy interests.	Blanket ruling ignores need for case-by-case balancing; applicants have privacy interests.	Yes, council is public body, subject to open meeting law.
Did candidates have a reasonable expectation of privacy in qualifications?	No, applicants "knowingly subject themselves to public scrutiny".	Applicants retain privacy interests even as public office hopefuls; cited university president evaluations.	Court declines broad constitutional ruling; resolves on statutory grounds.
Was preemptive, blanket closure of the meeting lawful?	No, closure not tied to actual discussion of private matters; must only occur when privacy interests identified.	Preemptive closure justified due to anticipated private info; difficult to segregate private/public topics.	Blanket, preemptive closure violated statute; must be specific and timely.
Should the Council’s recommendation be voided for open meeting violation?	All actions at illegal meeting should be void.	Recommendation was advisory and had no legal effect.	Not voided; Council’s act had no binding legal effect—affirmed.

Associated Press v. Usher, 407 Mont. 290 (Mont. 2022) (sets open meeting standards including review of judgment on pleadings)
Willems v. State, 374 Mont. 343 (Mont. 2014) (defines 'public body' for open meeting purposes)
Bryan v. Yellowstone Cty. Elem. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 312 Mont. 257 (Mont. 2002) (advisory groups may be classified as public bodies)
Missoulian v. Bd. of Regents, 207 Mont. 513 (Mont. 1984) (evaluations implicating significant privacy interests can justify closed meetings—but must be narrowly tailored)
Common Cause of Mont. v. Statutory Comm. to Nominate Candidates for Comm’r of Pol. Practices, 263 Mont. 324 (Mont. 1994) (advisory committees with public/governmental functions as public bodies)