MEIC v. Governor, 2025 MT 112

On Nov. 29, 2021 MEIC (Montana Environmental Information Center and Earthworks) requested public records from the Governor’s Office about DEQ’s dismissal of a “bad actor” enforcement action against Hecla Mining and wider Governor involvement in mining matters.
The Governor’s Office failed to timely produce records and ultimately refused, asserting a novel “pending litigation” exception tied to MEIC’s related Ksanka Elders litigation.
MEIC sued and obtained a writ of mandamus in district court compelling production; the Governor initially appealed but later dismissed the appeal and the Legislature clarified that pending or potential litigation does not excuse disclosure.
MEIC sought attorney’s fees under the public‑records/right‑to‑know statutes and the mandamus statute; the district court denied fees, finding no bad faith or unreasonable delay and noting some records might have been obtainable through discovery.
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, announcing (1) a rebuttable presumption favoring fee awards for plaintiffs who successfully vindicate Article II, §9, and (2) guidance on when mandamus remedies (and mandamus damages including fees) apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prevailing right‑to‑know plaintiff is entitled to a presumption favoring attorney’s fees	Prevailing enforces a fundamental public right and performs a public service; courts should presume fees to keep enforcement accessible	Statutes use permissive "may" language; fee awards are discretionary and no presumption is warranted	Court adopted a rebuttable presumption in favor of awarding fees to plaintiffs who prevail under Art. II, §9; district courts retain discretion to deny fees if plaintiff acted unreasonably and must explain reasons
Whether mandamus damages (including attorney’s fees) must be awarded when mandamus is granted	“May recover” in the mandamus statute reflects applicant’s option to request fees; a successful mandamus should require awarding damages/fees	A mandatory mandamus fee rule would undercut the Public Records Act’s discretionary framework and invite strategic mandamus filings	Court held successful mandamus generally mandates awarding damages (fees are damages), but restricted mandamus to clear, extraordinary cases and directed courts to scrutinize whether mandamus was necessary so mandatory fees do not swallow PRA discretion

Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1978) (framework for fee awards: prevailing plaintiffs ordinarily recover unless special circumstances; prevailing defendants recover only if action was frivolous or unreasonable)
Tripp v. Jeld‑Wen, Inc., 327 Mont. 146 (Mont. 2005) (Montana Court provided guidance to district courts for exercising discretion under a permissive fee statute)
McCann v. Trustees, Dodson Sch. Dist., 249 Mont. 362 (Mont. 1991) (frameworks necessary to guide discretionary fee awards under statutes)
Mlekush v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 389 Mont. 99 (Mont. 2017) (recognition of fee presumptions in specific contexts and the use of a totality‑of‑circumstances analysis)
Matter of Investigative Records (Gaustad), 265 Mont. 379 (Mont. 1994) (legislative history confirms "may" in right‑to‑know fee statute creates discretion)
Billings High Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. Billings Gazette, 335 Mont. 94 (Mont. 2006) (district court must provide rationale when denying fees under right‑to‑know statutes)
Kadillak v. Mont. Dep’t of State Lands, 198 Mont. 70 (Mont. 1982) (attorney’s fees are part of "damages" recoverable in mandamus proceedings)
Bryan v. Yellowstone Cnty. Elem. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 312 Mont. 257 (Mont. 2002) (constitutional presumption that public documents are subject to inspection)