Montana’s highest court struck down three abortion regulations Monday in a landmark decision that reaffirmed constitutional privacy rights while prompting sharp criticism from the state’s Republican governor.

In a 6-1 decision, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that three 2021 laws restricting abortion access violate the state constitution, invalidating the measures and reigniting statewide debate over reproductive rights, the Christian Post reported.

The ruling focused on laws passed by a Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Gov. Greg Gianforte. The laws included a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, a required ultrasound for pregnant women seeking abortion, and mandatory in-person consultations before receiving a medication abortion.

These laws, approved in 2021, were immediately challenged and placed on hold through a preliminary injunction by a lower court. That injunction remained in place until Monday’s decision officially nullified the laws based on unique constitutional protections found in the Montana Constitution.

The Montana Supreme Court cited its 1999 Armstrong decision, which interpreted Article II, Section 10 of the state Constitution as guaranteeing a broad right to privacy. This right, the court ruled, includes personal medical decisions made in collaboration with a health care provider, such as choosing to have an abortion.

Court Leans on Decades-Old Privacy Precedent

In Armstrong, the state’s highest court had found that individual privacy protections extended to what it called “procreative autonomy.” Monday’s ruling reaffirmed that standard, stating that the government may not interfere in medical decisions that affect bodily autonomy and health.

The court emphasized that under Armstrong, the right to obtain a lawful medical procedure like abortion must remain free from government imposition. It declared that such decisions are protected under state law regardless of national precedent.

Gov. Gianforte responded with pointed criticism, denouncing the court for what he characterized as a failure to consider scientific and legal progress since the 1999 precedent. “These activist justices rejected modern medicine and are instead clinging to medical care available more than 50 years ago,” Gianforte said.

First Amendment Used to Dismiss Speech-Related Clause

Beyond the privacy claims, the court also found fault with the law mandating that providers give certain information about abortion pill reversal. Citing Article II, Section 7 of the Montana Constitution, which guards free speech and expression, the court declared that compelling doctors to deliver state-mandated messages violates their speech rights.

“The government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys,” the court wrote. It also stated that regulating interaction based on the speaker’s viewpoint breaches constitutional boundaries in Montana.

In response, Gianforte accused the court of overreaching and said its justices had disregarded the legislative process. “They're overreaching, making law from the bench and rejecting the will of Montanans' duly-elected representatives who make laws,” he said.

Shifting Legal Landscape Following Dobbs

Montana’s ruling comes amid a changing legal landscape following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022, which overturned federal protections for abortion. In response, several states have moved to add abortion rights explicitly to their constitutions.

In November 2024, Montana voters approved a constitutional amendment affirming the right to abortion. This places Montana among a group of states, including Ohio, California, and Michigan, where similar amendments have been adopted in recent years.

According to the advocacy group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Montana remains one of 26 states with minimal abortion restrictions, largely due to the Armstrong ruling and the recent voter-approved amendment.

Legal Protections Remain in Place Before Viability

Under the Armstrong framework, abortion remains legal in Montana up to the point of fetal viability, meaning where the fetus could survive outside the womb. This standard, though redirected federally, remains intact within the state’s judicial structure.

Gianforte, who signed the challenged laws in 2021, vowed to continue advocating for unborn lives, stating that he would "pray for changed hearts" and work toward building what he called a "culture of life for every Montanan, born and unborn."

Though the immediate effect of the ruling was to overturn three major restrictions, its broader consequence may be to reaffirm Montana's unique status where abortion rights are constitutionally embedded, even at a time of national fracture on the issue.