Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.

Getty Images, Manu Vega

Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The First Amendment protects journalists during the news-gathering and publication processes. For example, under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be forced to report on an issue. However, the press is not entitled to different legal protections compared to a general member of the public under the First Amendment.

In the United States, there are protections for journalists beyond the First Amendment, including shield laws that protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources or information during news-gathering. 48 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but protections vary widely. There is currently no federal shield law. As of 2019, at least 22 journalists have been jailed in the U.S. for refusing to comply with requests to reveal sources of information. Seven other journalists have been jailed and fined for the same reason.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrat Donkey is winning arm wrestling match against Republican elephant

AI generated image

Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrats are quietly building momentum in the 2025 election cycle, notching two key legislative flips in special elections and gaining ground in early polling ahead of the 2026 midterms. While the victories are modest in number, they signal a potential shift in voter sentiment — and a brewing backlash against Republican-led redistricting efforts.

Out of 40 special elections held across the United States so far in 2025, only two seats have changed party control — both flipping from Republican to Democrat.

Keep ReadingShow less
Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

A DC Metropolitan Police Department car is parked near a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

President Trump announced the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., along with the deployment of federal agents—including more than 100 from the FBI. This comes despite Justice Department data showing that violent crime in D.C. fell 35% from 2023 to 2024, reaching its lowest point in over three decades. These aren’t abstract numbers—they paint a picture of a city safer than it has been in a generation, with fewer homicides, assaults, and robberies than at any point since the early 1990s.

The contradiction could not be more glaring: the same president who, on January 6, 2021, stalled for hours as a violent uprising engulfed the Capitol is now rushing to “liberate” a city that—based on federal data—hasn’t been this safe in more than thirty years. Then, when democracy itself was under siege, urgency gave way to dithering; today, with no comparable emergency—only vague claims of lawlessness—he mobilizes troops for a mission that looks less like public safety and more like political theater. The disparity between those two moments is more than irony; it is a blueprint for how power can be selectively applied, depending on whose power is threatened.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Need To Focus on Communication

Democrat Donkey phone operator

AI illustration

Democrats Need To Focus on Communication

The Democrats have a problem…I realize this isn’t a revelation, but I believe they’re boxed into a corner with limited options to regain their footing. Don’t get me wrong, the party could have a big win in the 2026 midterms with a backlash building against Trump and MAGA. In some scenarios, that could also lead to taking back the White House in 2028…but therein lies the problem.

In its second term, the Trump administration has severely cut government agencies, expanded the power of the Executive branch, enacted policies that will bloat the federal deficit, dismantled parts of the social safety net, weakened our standing in the world, and moved the US closer to a “pay for play” transactional philosophy of operating government that’s usually reserved for Third World countries. America has veered away from being the model emulated by other nations that aim to build a stable democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less