Montana

State constitutional guarantees regarding right to education

Art. 10 § 1 of the Montana Constitution. “(1) It is the goal of the people to establish a system of education which will develop the full educational potential of each person. Equality of educational opportunity is guaranteed to each person of the state. (2) The legislature shall provide a basic system of free quality public elementary and secondary schools.

Case law and legislative history defining and interpreting the right to education

Note: In Montana, attendance zones could be vulnerable to a challenge based on the promise in the state constitution that “equality of educational opportunity is guaranteed to each person of the state.” A state district court ruled that education is a “fundamental right,” but—in Helena Elementary School District v. State (1989)—the Montana Supreme Court specifically declined to confirm or overrule the lower court’s finding.

Further Interpretation

Helena Elementary School District v. State (1989)

The Montana Supreme Court ruled that the State's education funding system was unconstitutional both because it resulted in inadequate funding and because the spending disparities among the State's school districts “translate into a denial of equality of educational opportunity.” The Court concluded “that the plain meaning of the second sentence of subsection (1) is that each person is guaranteed equality of educational opportunity.”

Columbia Falls Elementary School District v. State (2005)

The Montana Supreme Court determined that the State’s school funding system did not meet the constitutional requirements of a “basic system of free quality public schools.” The Court wrote: “Unless funding relates to needs such as academic standards, teacher pay, fixed costs, costs of special education, and performance standards, then the funding is not related to the cornerstones of a quality education.” The Court also explained that a “system of education includes more than high achievement on standardized tests.”

As a result of the Court's decision, the State enacted a new funding system and took steps to address other education concerns cited by the Court.

MQEC v. State (2012)

The Montana Quality Education Council filed this suit, claiming that the State was out of compliance with the funding statute enacted to remedy its constitutional violation in the Columbia Falls case. The parties and the Court signed a Consent Decree, in which the State pledged to provide the annual inflation adjustments that plaintiffs sought. The Decree also stated that, “economic hardship or a change in financial circumstances of the State shall not serve as a basis for modification of this Consent Decree.”

State constitutional protections regarding non-discrimination and equity

Montana’s constitution explicitly guarantees equal protection and dignity regardless of sex.  Montana Constitution Article II, Section 4.

Missoula County District ( Court strikes down Montana law narrowly defining 'male' and 'female' • Daily Montanan)

In February 2025, a county judge struck down Senate Bill 458, which narrowly defined “male” and “female” and ruled it unconstitutional and discriminatory toward transgender and intersex people. 

Other relevant state constitutional civil rights protections

Missoula, Helena, Bozeman and Whitefish Cities + Butte-Silver Bow County – while the Montana Human Rights Act doesn’t cover sexual orientation or gender identity statewide, the foregoing cities and counties have enacted local protections in employment, housing and public accommodation.

State law equivalents to Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, and the Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) 

Montana Constitution: (The Constitution of the State of Montana. 72constit.pdf)  Montana does not have a direct state law equivalent but its constitution – Article II, Section 4 (Individual Dignity) states “The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.” This has been interpreted by Montana courts to prohibit discrimination based on sex, including within education. (See Constitutional Protections, supra).

Montana Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) (TITLE 49. HUMAN RIGHTS - Table of Contents, MCA) : Prohibits discrimination based on sex in employment, housing and public accommodations but does not explicitly mention education. However, education institutions as employers are covered under the MHRA for sex discrimination claims in employment contexts (e.g. faculty and staff).

Additional state civil rights protections that go beyond federal requirements (e.g., protections for LGBTQ+ students, multilingual learners, undocumented students)

None - Montana recently passed the HB 112 (2021) Bill restricting transgender women and girls from participating in women’s sports, conflicting with Title IX interpretations under Bostock and recent Biden Administration Title IX expansions. (B0112.pdf)

State law protections regarding color of law or pattern/practice liability for law enforcement in schools

Montana is in the Ninth Circuit which means that the burden to prove that an SRO cannot benefit from the Qualified Immunity defense falls to the Defendant, the SRO, must convince the court the facts support their qualified immunity defense. See Moreno v. Baca, 431 F.3d 633, 638 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Because the moving defendant bears the burden of proof on the issue of qualified immunity, he or she must produce sufficient evidence to require the plaintiff to go beyond his or her pleadings”).

"In any noncriminal action brought against any employee of a state, county, city, town, or other governmental entity for a negligent act, error, or omission … or other actionable conduct of the employee committed while acting within the course and scope of the employee's office or employment, the governmental entity employer, except as provided in subsection (6), shall defend the action on behalf of the employee and indemnify the employee." MT Code § 2-9-305.

Anti-discrimination protections under state human rights statutes

Housing Protections - MCA 49-2-305 makes it illegal to refuse to sell, rent or negotiate for housing based on color or to discriminate in terms, conditions or privileges.

Public Accommodations – MC 29-2-304 makes it illegal to deny or discriminate in access to public accommodations on the basis of color.

Educational Context – MHRA does not explicitly cover education, if a school is a place of public accommodation or an employer, the protections against discrimination based on color would apply.

Indian Education for All – MCA 20-1-501 - Recognition of American Indian cultural heritage - legislative intent. (1) It is the constitutionally declared policy of this state to recognize the distinct and unique cultural heritage of American Indians and to be committed in its educational goals to the preservation of their cultural heritage. (2) It is the intent of the legislature that in accordance with Article X, section 1(2), of the Montana constitution: (a) every Montanan, whether Indian or non-Indian, be encouraged to learn about the distinct and unique heritage of American Indians in a culturally responsive manner; and (b) every educational agency and all educational personnel will work cooperatively with Montana tribes or those tribes that are in close proximity, when providing instruction or when implementing an educational goal or adopting a rule related to the education of each Montana citizen, to include information specific to the cultural heritage and contemporary contributions of American Indians, with particular emphasis on Montana Indian tribal groups and governments. (3) It is also the intent of this part, predicated on the belief that all school personnel should have an understanding and awareness of Indian tribes to help them relate effectively with Indian students and parents, that educational personnel provide means by which school personnel will gain an understanding of and appreciation for the American Indian people.

Private right of action provisions under state civil rights and human rights statutes

There is no “private right of action” under Montana law for discrimination claims, which means that one cannot file a lawsuit directly in court under Montana law. However, the Montana Human Rights Bureau (HRB) can investigate complaints of discrimination in certain protected areas when a person asserts that an adverse action happened because they are a member of a protected class. A person may also appeal the HRB’s determination to the Human Rights Commission after following the HRB’s administrative process to its conclusion or if they believe the HRB did not follow established deadlines. See HRB section, infra. 

Identify whether state anti-discrimination laws also prohibit discrimination caused by disparate impact. If yes, does the state law allow a private right of action for disparate impact claims?

Montana recognizes a claim of unlawful discrimination based on disparate impact. (https://rules.mt.gov/browse/collections/aec52c46-128e-4279-9068-8af5d5432d74/policies/d35b2404-90d7-47a6-94aa-cdf57349fa32) Individuals should bring disparate impact claims through the Human Rights Bureau, discussed supra.

Is the right provided by state law conferred on the student, parent/guardian, or both? In other words, who can bring a claim under this law? 

A minor may enforce their rights by civil action or other legal proceedings in the same manner as a person of full age, except that a guardian shall conduct the action or proceedings (M.C.A. § 41-1-202)

Does the specified law or policy provide protections against retaliation? What are the elements of a retaliation claim? Are protections against retaliation clearly spelled out in the law or policy?

Montana law provides protection against retaliation and defines the elements of a retaliation claim. See Mont. Admin. r. 24.9.603.

(1) It is unlawful to retaliate against or otherwise discriminate against a person because the person engages in protected activity. A significant adverse act against a person because the person has engaged in protected activity or is associated with or related to a person who has engaged in protected activity is illegal retaliation. "Protected activity" means the exercise of rights under the act or code and may include:

(a) aiding or encouraging others in the exercise of rights under the act or code;

(b) opposing any act or practice made unlawful by the act or code; and

(c) filing a charge, testifying, assisting or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing to enforce any provision of the act or code.

(2) Significant adverse acts are those that would dissuade a reasonable person from engaging in a protected activity. This may include the following:

(a) violence or threats of violence, malicious damage to property, coercion, intimidation, harassment, the filing of a factually or legally baseless civil action or criminal complaint, or other interference with the person or property of an individual;

(b) discharge, demotion, denial of promotion, denial of benefits or other material adverse employment action;

(c) expulsion, blacklisting, denial of privileges or access, or other action adversely affecting the availability of goods, services, facilities, or advantages of a public accommodation;

(d) eviction, denial of services or privileges, or other action adversely affecting the availability of housing opportunities; and

(e) denial of credit, financing, insurance, educational, governmental or other services, benefits or opportunities.

Statute of limitations for filing education-related state civil rights complaints (or state civil rights complaints broadly) or state human rights complaints?

In order to proceed with a discrimination complaint in Montana, the complaint must be submitted to the Human Rights Bureau within 180 days from the date of the alleged discriminatory act (https://erd.dli.mt.gov/human-rights/faq)

Extension due to Internal Grievance Process: If the internal investigation is completed within 120 days, you have 180 days from its conclusion to file with the Human Rights Bureau. If the internal investigation takes longer than 120 days, you must file with the Human Rights Bureau within 300 days of when the alleged discriminatory practice occurred or was discovered. 

Are there areas where the state laws provide more protections than federal law? What are those areas? 

Gender Identity – Gender identity is a protected class under the MHRA. Maloney v. Yellowstone County (2022)

Article 10 § 2 of the Montana Constitution specifically recognizes “the distinct and unique cultural heritage of the American Indians and is committed in its educational goals to the preservation of their cultural integrity.”