Court Opinion

ID: 9957940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 18:05:40.899652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:33.149750
License: Public Domain

04/05/2024

           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                         Case Number: OP 24-0214

                                       OP 24-0214
                                   _________________

MONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE
RIGHTS, and SAMUEL DICKMAN, M.D.,

             Petitioner,

      v.                                                            ORDER

CHRISTI JACOBSEN, In her Official Capacity
as Montana Secretary of State,

             Respondent.
                                   _________________

       On April 4, 2024, Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights and Samuel Dickman,
M.D. (“MSRR”), petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus to direct Montana Secretary
of State Christi Jacobsen to perform her legally mandated duty to immediately send MSRR a
finalized petition form for Constitutional Initiative 14 (“CI-14”) as required by
§ 13-27-233(1), MCA. This Court concluded that an alternative writ was appropriate under
§ 27-26-203, MCA, and ordered Jacobsen to perform her duty no later than 1:00 p.m. on
Friday, April 5, 2024, and file notice of such with this Court. We further ordered that if she
failed to do so, she shall prepare, file, and serve a response to the petition for writ of
mandamus no later than noon on Monday, April 8, 2024, and show cause why she should not
be held in contempt of Court.
       Jacobsen has objected to this Court’s April 4, 2024 Order on two grounds. First, she
alleges that MSRR failed to properly serve her pursuant to § 27-26-205, MCA, and the
Attorney General pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 4(1). Second, she alleges that this Court cannot
issue a writ without providing her the opportunity to be heard.
       Shortly after Jacobsen filed her Objection, MSRR filed Declaration of Service notices
with this Court affirming that it had served Jacobsen and the Attorney General. Thus, if any
defects in service existed, they have been cured and Jacobsen’s objection has been resolved
as to these grounds.
        As to Jacobsen’s objection that she has not been provided the opportunity to be heard,
Jacobsen misapprehends our April 4, 2024 Order. In her Objection, she states, in relevant
part:
        Moreover, before a Writ can issue, the Secretary must be given an opportunity
        to be heard. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-26-202 (“The notice of the application,
        when given, must be at least 10 days or a shorter time, in the discretion of the
        court or judge.”); Mont. Code Ann. § 27-26-204 (“When an application to the
        court or judge is made without notice to the adverse and the writ be allowed,
        the alternative must be first issued;” peremptory writ may not be issued in the
        first instance without due notice); Mont. Code Ann. § 27-26-302 (“On the
        return of the alternative or the day on which the application for the writ is
        noticed, the party on whom the writ or notice has been served may show cause
        by answer, under oath, made in the same manner as an answer to complaint in
        a civil action.”) . . . .

        Although Jacobsen quotes the statute, she appears to conflate the alternative writ—
when an application was made to the Court without notice—with a peremptory writ—which
“may not be issued in the first instance without due notice.” Section 27-26-204, MCA.
Section 27-26-203, MCA, provides that a writ may be either alternative or peremptory. “The
alternative writ must state generally the allegation against the party to whom it is directed
and command the party, immediately after the receipt of the writ or at some other specified
time, to do the act required to be performed or to show cause before the court, at a specified
time and place, why the party has not done so.”
        In our April 4, 2024 Order, we specified, “In this instance, we conclude that an
alternative writ is appropriate.” In accord with § 27-26-203, MCA, we stated the allegation
against Jacobsen and commanded her to do the act required to be performed or to show cause
before this Court at a specified time and place.
        We do not find Jacobsen’s Objection well-taken. Our April 4, 2024 Order remains
in effect. While Jacobsen’s Objection did not specify any relief, we conclude she is entitled
to none.
                                               2
      IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this Court’s April 4, 2024 Order REMAINS IN
EFFECT, is valid, and Respondent Secretary of State Jacobsen shall timely comply or show
cause why not, as previously ordered.
      The Clerk is directed to immediately provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of
record.
      DATED this 5th day of April, 2024.
                                               /S/ MIKE McGRATH
                                               /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
                                               /S/ LAURIE McKINNON
                                               /S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
                                               /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

                                           3

                                                                           Electronically signed by:
                                                                                 Mike McGrath
                                                                    Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court
                                                                                  April 5 2024