In a controversial decision that flies in the face of biological science, a Montana District Court judge ruled that Senate Bill 458— which legally defined sex as strictly male or female— is unconstitutional.
The ruling, handed down by Judge Leslie Halligan, claims the law violates the Montana Constitution’s guarantees of privacy and equal protection. However, critics argue that the decision disregards basic biological facts and undermines the will of Montana voters who supported clear, science-based definitions of sex.
Halligan was appointed to the bench in 2015 by Democrat Governor Steve Bullock. Her husband Mike Halligan, was a longtime Democrat legislator from Missoula.
The Montana Department of Justice, under Attorney General Austin Knudsen, strongly opposes the ruling and plans to appeal, according to spokesperson Chase Scheuer.
“This ruling is an outrageous rejection of common sense,” Scheuer stated. “Once again, activist judges are pushing an ideological agenda rather than adhering to the law or recognizing basic biological facts. Montanans deserve better.”
Senate Bill 458, introduced in 2023, was a straightforward attempt to affirm what supporters say science has long established: sex is biologically determined at birth as either male or female. This definition aligns with the reality of genetics, anatomy, and reproductive biology—facts that have been the foundation of medicine and science for centuries.
Despite the science, Judge Halligan ruled that defining sex in legal terms infringes on privacy rights, writing:
“Regulations that interfere with an individual’s ability to self-define and make personal choices concerning their identity infringe on the right to privacy.”
Critics say this reasoning is deeply flawed. The law was not about “identity”—it was about ensuring legal clarity based on biological truth. Allowing subjective self-identification to override scientific definitions sets a dangerous precedent, opening the door to confusion in areas such as women’s sports, medical treatment, and legal documentation.
Immediately after the bill was signed into law, activist groups filed lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. These groups included individuals who identify as transgender, intersex, or Two-Spirit—terms that, while socially or culturally relevant to some, do not change the biological fact of sex.
Dimitrios Tsolakidis, an attorney with the liberal nonprofit group Upper Seven Law, represented the plaintiffs, arguing that the law would lead to discrimination.
“This law would’ve made it okay, for example, for all of our plaintiffs to get fired from their jobs, lose their housing, be denied healthcare, all because of how they identify,” he claimed.
However, supporters of the bill argue that such claims are misleading. The law did not seek to deny anyone rights but to ensure that legal definitions reflect biological reality rather than ideology.
Montana’s government is now preparing to take the case to the state’s Supreme Court, where they hope reason and scientific fact will prevail over judicial activism.
“This decision is just another example of radical activists using the courts to force their agenda on the people of Montana,” Scheuer said. “We will fight to ensure that laws based on reality, not ideology, are upheld.”
As this legal battle moves forward, conservatives across the country are watching closely. The outcome could set a precedent for how courts handle fundamental biological truths in the face of mounting pressure from activist movements.
By: DNU staff