Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Boiling the judicial frog

Court gavel
Marilyn Nieves/Getty Images

Nelson is a retired attorney and served as an associate justice of the Montana Supreme Court from 1993 through 2012.

Most of us have heard the story about boiling the frog. Drop a frog in boiling water, and he’ll jump right out. But drop the frog in cool water and then increase the temperature of the water slowly, and the frog won’t notice. Soon it will be cooked.

That’s exactly what is happening to state courts around the country. The Brennan Center for Justice comprehensively reports that as state courts have taken on greater importance over many polarizing issues — involving abortion, voting, gerrymandering, judicial selection and independence, judicial decision-making, judicial review, Medicaid coverage of women’s health, climate change, and limiting enforcement of court rulings — right-wing politicians and legislatures have redoubled their efforts to assert political power over state judicial branches and ensure judges will not be an obstacle to their partisan policy goals.


These attacks on state judicial branches have been incremental — a law here, a law there, chipping away at the third branch of government, with the ultimate goal of bringing judges and the courts under the control and heavy thumbs of the legislative and executive branches.

The political branches refuse to recognize that under our tripartite, constitutional system, judicial branches are co-equal and coordinate branches serving as checks and balances against the other two.

Montana, where I served on the Supreme Court, has not escaped these sorts of attacks. Indeed, starting with the 2021 supermajority Legislature, and continuing in the 2023 session, the political branches launched a veritable jihad against this state’s judicial branch and its judiciary. For the most part, these attacks have not succeeded. But the war goes on, nonetheless.

One of the latest attempts by the political branch camels to get their noses under the judicial tent involves the 2023 Legislature’s formation of a Senate Select Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform. It is a quintessential example of the arrogance and hubris of the extremists in this Legislature to believe that they have either the duty or the power to oversee, much less reform, the operations or decisions of a coordinate, co-equal branch of state government.

Quite simply, the judicial branch does not work for the Legislature or the executive branch. Rather, the judicial branch serves as a co-equal constitutional check and balance on the two political branches. This most basic principle of constitutional law (not to mention, middle school Civics 101) is enshrined in Article III, Section 1 of Montana’s Constitution, which provides:

"Separation of powers. The power of the government of this state is divided into three distinct branches—legislative, executive, and judicial. No person or persons charged with the exercise of power properly belonging to one branch shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted." (Italics added)

The committee’s opening shot across the bow of the judicial branch was its letter demanding that the Montana Supreme Court answer a number of questions involving the court’ s procedures in calling in substitute judges in some cases, in retired justices filing an amicus curiae brief and in other matters. And this follows on the heels of the 2021 Legislature’s attempts to investigate the courts’ emails and its upending the 50-year-old system for appointing judges on merit, in favor of a partisan system under the control of the governor.

These are examples only. The point is that every attempt to “oversee and reform” turns up the temperature of the water in which the political branches have placed the judicial branch.

Unless the voters stop the political branches, the judicial branch will soon be boiled. It will be cooked!


Read More

The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

A look at this week's congressional agenda, including House votes on Iran, Ukraine, FISA, appropriations, and key legislative priorities.

Getty Images, aire images

Legislative Preview for June 1, 2026

There will be plenty of coverage around the likely drama involved in picking up where House and Senate Republicans left off before this most recent week off. (For a recap, see our last post.) So we’re not going to go into any detail about what might happen with the reconciliation bill (originally only for two departments in the Department of Homeland Security; now enlarged with funding for the President’s ballroom project and overshadowed by the announcement of the President’s plan to pay off political allies with funds from the Department of Justice) or the FISA extension or the housing bill that’s been pingponging between chambers because you can read in sources like Politico about these marquee issue.

We will note that the Iran War resolution postponed in the House before the recess may be up for a vote this week, along with a resolution to remove US troops from Lebanon and a discharge petition (number 8) to put forward a bill authorizing support for Ukraine. Three privileged resolutions, of which one is a discharge petition (meaning it has 218 co-sponsors meaning at least a few House Republican co-sponsors), is a lot for one week. Especially when all three are expressing opposition to various administration stances and might get some House Republican votes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Can Governing Survive Without Continuity?
white and black quote board
Photo by Brendan Beale on Unsplash

Can Governing Survive Without Continuity?

Modern societies depend on continuity.

Electric grids are built over decades. Infrastructure systems require long investment cycles. Defense planning depends on sustained procurement and strategic consistency. Climate adaptation, energy systems, artificial intelligence governance, public health preparedness, and fiscal stability all require institutions capable of maintaining long-term priorities across multiple administrations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Can Coalitions Built on Opposition Still Govern?

Supporters of President Donald Trump, February 09, 2024 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Can Coalitions Built on Opposition Still Govern?

Political parties are supposed to do two things at once: win elections and govern. Those are not the same skill.

Winning elections requires assembling coalitions large enough to secure power. Governing requires maintaining enough internal agreement to make decisions, negotiate trade-offs, allocate resources, and sustain policy direction once power is achieved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Fragile Promise of the Ballot
black and white love print crew neck shirt
Photo by Cyrus Crossan on Unsplash

The Fragile Promise of the Ballot

Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee were not just redefinitions of election law; they marked a critical shift away from the federal government’s duty to ensure equal ballot access—a duty fundamental to democracy.

The consequences were swift and broad. Within hours, Shelby County, Texas, imposed strict voter ID rules that federal officials had previously blocked under the Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions. Soon after, North Carolina reduced early voting and eliminated same-day registration. Across parts of Alabama, Georgia, and other Southern states, polling places closed or moved, often in communities with large Black populations. What once required federal review could now proceed quickly.

Keep ReadingShow less