Drafted and Shafted: Who Should Complain About Male-Only Registration?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor comments on a recent opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that requiring men but not women to register for the draft is constitutional under mandatory U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Specifically, Colb considers what the U.S. Supreme Court should do if it agrees to hear the case and more narrowly, whether the motives of the plaintiffs in that case bear on how the case should come out.

Read More

Poplar Elementary School District No. 9 v. Froid Elementary School District No. 65

Citation: 2020 MT 216

Opinion Date: August 25, 2020

Judge: Beth Baker

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Education Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the Acting Roosevelt County Superintendent of School's grant of a territory transfer from Poplar Elementary School District No. 9 to Froid Elementary School District No. 65 pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 20-6-105, holding that the Acting Superintendent did not abuse her discretion, and that Poplar's constitutional challenges failed. On appeal, Poplar argued that the Acting Superintendent's decision granting the territory transfer petition constituted an abuse of discretion and that section 20-6-105, the territory transfer statute, is unconstitutional both facially and as applied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly determined that the Acting Superintendent did not abuse her discretion in granting the petition to transfer the transfer territory; (2) the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel barred Poplar's facial constitutional challenge; and (3) Poplar's as-applied challenge failed because a school district does not have a constitutional right to due process.

State v. Khongwiset

Citation: 2020 MT 215

Opinion Date: August 25, 2020

Judge: Mike McGrath

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of assault with a weapon, a felony, holding that the district court conducted an adequate inquiry into Defendant's request to substitute counsel. On appeal, Defendant argued that when she requested that her counsel be replaced, the trial court's inquiry into her complaints was inadequate. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the district court conducted an adequate inquiry into the nature and causes of the apparent conflicts and alleged breakdown in communication between Defendant and her counsel; and (2) because Defendant failed to present material facts demonstrating that there was an irreconcilable conflict or breakdown in communication such that she was unable to mount an adequate defense, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's request to substitute counsel.

City of Bozeman v. Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation

Citation: 2020 MT 214

Opinion Date: August 25, 2020

Judge: James A. Rice

Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying the petition filed by the City of Bozeman seeking judicial review of a final order of the Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) granting Utility Solutions, LLC's application to change a water right, holding that the court did not err in determining that the City's water facility plan did not qualify as an interest protectable from adverse effects under Mont. Code Ann. 85-2-402(2)(a). Utility Solutions filed its change application for authorization to change the place of use of its water use permit. The City filed an objection, arguing that the application would adversely affect the City's possessory interest in the area that was established by the City's adoption of a growth policy, as expanded geographically by an updated water facility plan. The DNRC hearing examiner granted the change application, concluding that although the change application resulted in a geographic overlap of the place of use with the City's water facility plan, the overlap did not result in an adverse effect within the meaning of section 85-2-402(2)(a). The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the DNRC's determination that Utility Solutions carried its burden to prove the City did not have an interest protectable from adverse effects.