Ler says House is holding bill to define sex to prevent judiciary from ‘playing politics’

A key Republican bill to define sex as only male or female hasn’t become law months after the 2025 session ended — and that’s on purpose, House leadership said this week.

In a news release, Republican leaders in the House said Senate Bill 437 passed both chambers, but House leadership is holding onto the bill “to prevent it from being immediately tied up with ongoing litigation” over a similar measure passed in 2023.

The similar measure from 2023 is Senate Bill 458, also defining sex.

“Montanans sent us here to make law, not to let activist judges tear it down the moment the ink dries,” said Speaker of the House Brandon Ler in a statement.

Upper Seven, a law firm that fought the similar bill and aims to challenge SB 437, said it was wasteful to keep passing legislation that’s already been thrown out.

“The majority is so hell-bent on discriminating against certain Montanans that they’re willing to waste time and taxpayer money passing the same unconstitutional laws over and over again,” said Upper Seven lawyer Molly Danahy in a statement.

Days before the new bill was introduced this session, a district court judge found SB 458 to be unconstitutional based on its content.

In her order, Missoula County District Court Judge Leslie Halligan said the bill erased some Montana residents from existence, and she warned similar bills would meet similar fates.

“By declaring as a matter of law that a human being can only be ‘exactly’ one of two sexes, SB 458 explicitly excludes (two plaintiffs) from the definition of human beings, causing immediate harm traceable to SB 458,” the decision said.

That ruling on a case filed by Upper Seven followed a previous court challenge that found the bill had violated a constitutional provision based on its title.

Lawmakers amended SB 437, and already had changed its title, but the intent of the bill remains the same.

Soon after the bill was passed, Upper Seven informed the state it would add claims against SB 437 to the existing case once the new bill was signed into law.

With the announcement from House leadership this week, however, the bill has yet to become law.

“We refuse to hand the judiciary an easy path to lump these cases together and stall the will of the people. That’s why we are being deliberate with the timing on SB 437,” said Ler, from Savage.

Ler said the move is aimed at guarding the legislation against “a judiciary that has become more interested in playing politics than upholding law.”

“By holding SB 437, we’re making sure this legislation has the strongest chance to stand,” Ler said. “We will not sit back while partisan judges try to erase what the people’s representatives have enacted.”

Upper Seven, though, said the Montana Constitution “prohibits denying basic rights based on clothes, pronouns, or chromosomes,” and Ler is playing politics.

“Knowing that Montanans are ready and willing to stand up and fight for their rights and the equal application of Montana law to all Montanans, the Speaker would rather engage in political grandstanding and anti-democratic delay tactics than allow them their day in court,” said Danahy, with Upper Seven.

Attorneys’ fees in the case in district court are still playing out, and the judge is considering whether to hold it for SB 437.

In the separate case the ACLU of Montana filed over the bill title, the judge awarded nearly $100,000 to the plaintiffs.

In an email, a spokesperson for the Governor’s Office didn’t weigh in on whether Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte agrees with the strategy by House leadership to hold the bill.

“The governor looks forward to signing the bill when it makes it to his desk,” said spokesperson Kaitlin Price.