Montana Senate Bill SB271

Montana 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/23
• Refer: 2/3/23

Caption

Revise court costs related to natural resources

Impact

The implications of SB 271 on existing state laws related to environmental regulation and natural resource management are profound. By adjusting how courts assess litigation costs, the bill may increase accessibility for various litigants, especially smaller parties or individuals with limited resources. However, critics have raised concerns that this change might dissuade parties from taking legal action in environmental matters due to concerns over potential cost liabilities. The bill is set against a backdrop of ongoing debates about how environmental regulations can impact economic activities while safeguarding community interests and public health. Consequently, the passage of this bill could reshape future litigation involving environmental claims and disputes regarding resource management.

Summary

Senate Bill 271 proposes significant changes in the determination of court costs related to decisions involving natural resources and environmental issues. One of its critical provisions is the prohibition of courts and administrative agencies from considering the identity of parties when awarding litigation costs, enabling a more equitable approach for all involved parties. This legislative change aims to ensure that the process does not favor certain types of litigants, such as public interest groups, which previously benefited under the private attorney general doctrine. The bill places the burden of proof on the party requesting court costs, shifting the responsibility from the prevailing party. This adjustment intends to level the playing field during litigation, making it less costly for disadvantaged parties to seek justice.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding SB 271 include opposition from certain environmental advocacy groups who argue that the bill could undermine the capacity of public interest litigants to enforce environmental laws. They contend that reducing the advantages these groups had under previous legislation could diminish accountability for reckless environmental actions. Moreover, there are fears that imposing a cost burden may deter legitimate claims against entities that harm natural resources or public health, thereby potentially allowing polluters to evade responsibility without facing adequate legal challenges.