Supreme Court says Attorney General exceed authority in Gallatin County
Nov 09, 2026 | 7:16 pm ET
Description
Gallatin County Courthouse in Bozeman. (Keila Szpaller/The Daily Montanan)
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s administrative seizure of the Gallatin County Attorney’s office is “unenforceable” and he exceeded his authority in attempting to do so, the Montana Supreme Court said in a unanimous opinion issued late last week.
Knudsen and newly re-elected Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell have been in a 13-month legal battle about the status of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as it operates in Montana and how it stands in state law – either as a “criminal justice agency” as it’s termed in state code, or an agency that also includes civil enforcement components.
“I’m grateful for the court’s clarification of the law, and look forward to continuing my duties to the people of Gallatin County,” Cromwell said in a statement to the Daily Montanan.
The dispute centers on whether state law enforcement, including county attorneys offices, must turn over “confidential criminal justice data” to other agencies in civil matters. In some circumstances, immigration arrests are civil in nature.
Knudsen took over the office on April 30. He has argued ICE is always a criminal justice agency under Montana law, and therefore can have access to any data it pleases.
Montana has strong privacy laws, and Cromwell has argued ICE is not a criminal justice agency in all contexts, and therefore should have to follow rules and processes that are dependent on how that information will be used by the federal agency.
While the state supreme court ruled that Knudsen exceeded his authority in an attempted administrative take-over of the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office, it did not decide where ICE sits in Montana law, instead asking both sides to answer two questions for further deliberation:
(1) Whether ICE is a “criminal justice agency” as defined by §§ 44-5-103(2), and -103(7)(b), MCA, and whether that determination can be made as a matter of law or requires a factual determination.
(2) Whether a “criminal justice agency” as defined by §§ 44-5-103(2), and -103(7)(b), MCA, is entitled to confidential criminal justice information solely by virtue of its status as a “criminal justice agency.”
The parties have until Dec. 7 to submit their respective briefs.
“The Attorney General does not supervise the county attorney in her representation of her local government, and cannot override the local government client’s direction of a lawsuit,” the Supreme Court opinion, written by Justice James Jeremiah Shea said. “If that were the case, the Attorney General could deprive a local government of due process by directing a county attorney to dismiss any civil suit against the State and prohibit a county attorney from representing a county on an issue.”
The state Department of Justice did not respond to questions about the case, or give a response to the high court’s ruling.
It wasn’t the first time Knudsen’s office has attempted to use supervisory authority: He unsuccessfully lobbied the state Supreme Court in 2025 to use the court’s supervisory authority over Missoula District Court.
Helena, MT
