Montana Judge Strikes Down Law Clarifying There Are Only 2 Sexes
S.A. McCarthy /
A Montana judge is striking down a state law defining “sex” as either male or female, claiming that the law violates the Montana State Constitution.
In an order issued on Tuesday, Montana District Court Judge Shane Vannatta, the first Montana judge to openly identify as homosexual, declared Senate Bill 458 to be facially unconstitutional according to Montana state law.
The legislation, passed by the Legislature in 2023 and signed into law by Gov. Greg Gianforte, a Republican, revised state law to declare:
In human beings, there are exactly two sexes, male and female, with two corresponding types of gametes. The sexes are determined by the biological and genetic indication of male or female, including sex chromosomes, naturally occurring sex chromosomes, gonads, and nonambiguous internal and external genitalia present at birth, without regard to an individual’s psychological, behavioral, social, chosen, or subjective experience of gender.
According to the law, “female” is defined as “a member of the human species who, under normal development, has XX chromosomes and produces or would produce relatively large, relatively immobile gametes, or eggs, during her life cycle and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of those gametes,” and “male” is defined as “a member of the human species who, under normal development, has XY chromosomes and produces or would produce small, mobile gametes, or sperm, during his life cycle and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of those gametes.”
A number of LGBTQ+ plaintiffs challenged the law in December, arguing that the legislation’s language is facially unconstitutional and that its content is discriminatory to those who identify as LGBTQ+ in Montana.
While Vannatta did not address the second series of arguments, he did rule that the law’s language makes it unconstitutional. According to Article V, Section 3 of the Montana State Constitution, all bills, “except general appropriation bills and bills for the codification and general revision of the laws, shall contain only one subject, clearly expressed in its title.”
The state argued that the law’s title—“AN ACT GENERALLY REVISING THE LAWS TO PROVIDE A COMMON DEFINITION FOR THE WORD SEX WHEN REFERRING TO A HUMAN…”—constitutionally exempts the legislation from the constitution’s “single subject rule.”
Vannatta wrote, “In oral argument, the State contends that the language of this constitutional provision must be interpreted as providing three different exceptions to the single subject requirement: general appropriation bills, bills for the codification of the laws, and bills for the general revision of the laws.”
Quoting the Montana Supreme Court, Vannatta responded, “The legislature’s use of the conjunctive ‘and’ clearly indicates an intent to establish two mandatory prerequisites.”
“For a bill to be exempt from [the ‘single subject rule’] requirements it must be for both the codification and general revision of the laws. The title does not also state the Bill is ‘for the codification’ of the law,’” the judge wrote. Claiming that SB 458’s content does not codify law, he added, “Furthermore, simply adding ‘for the codification’ of the law language to the title does not exempt the Bill from the Single Subject Rule requirements.”
Vannatta further wrote, “The State does not address the fact that ‘sex’ has more than one definition. … The title does not indicate that the body of the Bill provides a common definition for ‘sex,’ meaning ‘gender,’ and not ‘sex’ meaning ‘sexual intercourse.’ The meaning for the word ‘sex’ is not clearly expressed in the title.”
He continued, “The title of S.B. 458 does not clarify what meaning of ‘sex’ is intended and does not indicate that the words ‘female’ and ‘male’ are defined in the body of the Bill. The title does not give general notice of the character of the legislation in a way that guards against deceptive or misleading titles.”
The Montana judge’s decision has already drawn criticism from conservatives. Sean Southard, a spokesman for Gianforte, said, “Words matter. And this administration is committed to ensuring words have meaning, unlike this judge, who apparently needs a dictionary to discern the difference between a noun and a verb.”
“This is a clear example of judicial activism. In S.B. 458, the Montana Legislature provided a well-defined meaning of ‘sex,’ and then District Judge Shane Vannatta, by a unilateral pronouncement, simply determined the definition ‘unconstitutional,’” explained former Rep. Jody Hice, senior vice president at Family Research Council, in comments to The Washington Stand. “By so doing, he assumed the role of chief ‘legislator’ while rendering the elected body of representatives ineffective.”
“The judge’s actions are intolerable. Legislating from the bench should be reprimanded; it should never be approved or accepted as the final word,” Hice continued. “Judicial fiat not only undermines our system of three equal branches of government, it also weakens our Republic as a whole.”