Limits on Closing Advisory Council Meetings under Montana Open Meetings Law

Introduction

In Choteau Acantha Publishing, Inc. and Montana Free Press v. Greg Gianforte and Jennifer Stutz (2025 MT 76), the Supreme Court of Montana clarified the procedures under Montana’s open meetings law for when a public body may constitutionally and statutorily exclude the public. Petitioners challenged the blanket closure of interviews and deliberations by the Governor’s Advisory Council for a Ninth Judicial District vacancy, asserting that Montana’s statutory scheme required any such closure to be limited in scope and supported by an on-the-record balancing of privacy interests against the public’s right to know.

Case Background and Key Issues

After the 2021 legislative overhaul of the judicial selection process, Governor Greg Gianforte formed an advisory council under § 2-15-122, MCA, to vet applicants for a district court judgeship. At the March 23, 2023 meeting, the two applicants asserted constitutional privacy rights, and Chair Jennifer Stutz closed the meeting for the entirety of the interviews and ensuing deliberations. Representatives of Choteau Acantha and the Montana Free Press objected. The council nonetheless ranked applicants and forwarded its recommendations; Governor Gianforte ultimately appointed the runner-up. Petitioners then sued, seeking a declaration that the blanket closure violated § 2-3-203(3), MCA.

Procedural History

District Court: Denied Respondents’ motion to dismiss the merits claim; granted judgment on the pleadings for Petitioners. Held that (1) a public body may close only the specific time when private matters arise and (2) judicial applicants have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their qualifications.
Appeal: Respondents challenged only the ruling on the scope and timing of permissible closure under § 2-3-203(3), MCA.
Supreme Court Holding: Affirmed on statutory grounds without addressing the constitutional privacy question.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that Section 2-3-203(3), MCA, requires two steps before any portion of a public meeting may be closed:

The presiding officer must determine, at the moment closure is invoked, that the topic under discussion truly implicates a private interest.
The presiding officer must conclude and articulate that the demands of individual privacy clearly exceed the merits of public disclosure.

Because Chair Stutz closed the meeting preemptively—before any substantive discussion and without on-the-record findings—her action violated the plain requirements of the statute. The Court declined to reach the constitutionally based holding on reasonable expectations of privacy, relying instead on the narrower statutory violation to affirm.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Missoulian v. Board of Regents (1984): Endorsed closure of intertwined presidential performance evaluations after a full privacy assessment; demonstrated that statutory procedure must be followed precisely before excluding the press.
Raap v. Board of Trustees (2018): Held that at the time of closure, a public body must provide a “sufficiently descriptive” rationale so the public understands the factual and legal basis without revealing private details.
Associated Press v. Crofts (2004): Set forth criteria for identifying a “public body” under Montana’s open meetings law, favoring broad construction to promote transparency.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis focused on the text of § 2-3-203(3), MCA:

“The presiding officer of any meeting may close the meeting during the time the discussion relates to a matter of individual privacy and then if and only if the presiding officer determines that the demands of individual privacy clearly exceed the merits of public disclosure.”

By closing the meeting before any discussion had occurred, and without articulating why privacy outweighed openness, Chair Stutz failed (1) to limit closure to the precise moment privacy was implicated, and (2) to make the statutorily required, on-the-record determination. The Court emphasized that Montana’s open meeting laws must be “liberally interpreted in favor of openness,” and that a prophylactic, blanket exclusion is impermissible.

Impact on Future Cases and Governance

This decision provides clear guidance for all Montana public bodies:

Specificity: Closures must be tied to identifiable discussions that genuinely implicate privacy.
On-the-Record Findings: Presiding officers must articulate factual and legal reasons why privacy interests “clearly exceed” the public’s right to know.
Temporal Limitation: Meeting rooms may only close for the brief period during which private matters are discussed.

Agencies and advisory councils will need to update policies, train personnel, and adopt procedures that ensure compliance and avoid overbroad closures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Public Body: Any group organized to carry out governmental functions, including advisory councils recommending judicial candidates.
Section 2-3-203(3), MCA: The statute governing when and how a public meeting may be lawfully closed for privacy reasons.
Judgment on the Pleadings: A procedure granting relief when the unchallenged pleadings establish the legal right to judgment without need for trial.

Conclusion

Choteau Acantha v. Gianforte firmly establishes that under Montana law, public bodies cannot employ blanket closures of meetings. Any exclusion of the public must be precisely targeted, temporary, and supported by contemporaneous, on-the-record findings that individual privacy interests “clearly exceed” the public’s right to know. By affirming the District Court’s statutory analysis, the Supreme Court of Montana reinforced the principle that transparency in government proceedings is the rule, and secrecy the rare exception.