Compact will still be challenged for unconstitutional provisions
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
Once again Richard Erb’s interpretation of the facts regarding the State Supreme Court’s ruling in FJBC v. Montana is incorrect.
The FJBC suit did not address the unconstitutionality of the contents of the CSKT compact. Rather it addressed a legislative procedural requirement for passage of the SB262 because of the granting of immunity from suit for monetary damages to a creature of the compact, the Unitary Management Board (UMB). The FJBC contended that this special grant of immunity required a two thirds majority approval in both Houses (Article II, Section 18, Montana State Constitution). Judge Manley agreed with the FJBC position saying “…it’s not even close…” The State disagreed with Judge Manley and appealed.
So let’s be clear about this State Supreme Court’s decision. It did not rule on the constitutionality of the uncompensated taking of property rights, the lack of due process, etc. It only ruled, by some tortured logic, that the two thirds majority in both houses was not required even though there was a special grant of immunity.
The compact can still be attacked for its unconstitutional provisions and this most certainly will occur.
Jerry Laskody
St. Ignatius
