The Montana Supreme Court issued a decisive opinion on November 6, 2026, that curtails the supervisory reach of Attorney General Austin Knudsen over Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell. The court granted part of Cromwell’s petition, recognizing that the case raises a justiciable question and that the county attorney has standing to request a declaratory ruling on the legality of providing confidential criminal‑justice information to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without a court order.
Key Findings
The justices held that the Attorney General does not possess supervisory authority over a county attorney when the attorney is acting as legal adviser to the county and its subdivisions. The court concluded that Knudsen overstepped his statutory powers by attempting to direct the Gallatin County Attorney’s legal advice toward county offices and employees. Consequently, the order asserting supervisory control was deemed unenforceable.
Unresolved Issue
While the court clarified the limits on the Attorney General’s authority, it did not resolve the underlying substantive question: whether Montana counties may provide confidential criminal‑justice information to ICE. The justices ordered both parties to submit briefing papers by December 7, 2026, addressing two specific points: (1) whether ICE qualifies as a criminal‑justice agency under Montana law, and (2) whether an agency designated as such is automatically entitled to access confidential criminal‑justice data.
Implications for Local Governance
This ruling reinforces the principle of local autonomy in legal matters, ensuring that county attorneys can advise their jurisdictions without undue interference from the state Attorney General. It also underscores the importance of clear statutory definitions regarding the flow of sensitive law‑enforcement information to federal immigration authorities.
Next Steps
Gallatin County and the Attorney General’s office will now prepare their briefs, focusing on the statutory interpretation of “criminal‑justice agency” and the confidentiality protections afforded to local law‑enforcement records. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision on these matters will have significant ramifications for how Montana counties handle ICE requests and for the broader conversation about state versus federal jurisdiction over immigration‑related data.
Legal observers and community members alike will be watching the outcome, as it may set a precedent for other counties across the state facing similar ICE record‑sharing inquiries.
Original reporting: KTVQ Q2 Billings (local) — read the source article.
