In brief
Montana's Supreme Court has ruled on the misconduct case against Attorney General Austin Knudsen, dismissing it based on violations of due process rights despite finding conduct rules were breached. The case stemmed from Knudsen's actions concerning a law that grants the governor more authority in judicial appointments, amid accusations of attacking the judiciary's integrity. Critics, including Justice Katherine Bidegaray, contended that an admonition without punitive measures fails to uphold the standards expected of legal professionals.
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Montana’s Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a misconduct case against the state’s attorney general after he defied court orders in a dispute over a law that gave the governor more power over the judiciary.
A court-appointed panel last year found that Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen repeatedly attacked the integrity of the justices in his defense of a 2021 law permitting the state’s Republican governor to directly fill judicial vacancies.
The panel had recommended that Knudsen’s license to practice law be suspended for 90 days.
Knudsen had urged the high court to dismiss the case, describing it as a distraction. We’ve said it from the very beginning, this was nothing more than a political stunt, he stated after the ruling.
While the justices recognized that Knudsen had violated rules of professional conduct, they concluded that the panel handling the case infringed upon his due process rights by excluding his expert witness and failing to provide a clear rationale for its decision against him.
Chief Justice Cory Swanson noted that the ruling served as a public admonition of Knudsen's misconduct, warning all attorneys, including Knudsen and his staff, to adhere to court orders.
The conflict between Montana’s chief law enforcement officer and the high court revolved around a law that was part of a national GOP initiative to shape a more conservative judiciary, ultimately upheld by the Montana Supreme Court.
In court filings, Knudsen's office accused the Supreme Court justices of misconduct and self-dealing, which escalated tensions further.
Despite the ruling dismissing the misconduct allegations, Justice Katherine Bidegaray dissented, suggesting that Knudsen's actions warranted a public censure and a 30-day suspension to protect public confidence in the justice system.
The court's decision to absolve Knudsen of significant penalties indicates a complex interplay between political dynamics and the ethical responsibilities of public officials.
