In brief
The Montana Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday to dismiss a misconduct case against Attorney General Austin Knudsen that stemmed from his defiance of court orders regarding a law that expanded gubernatorial powers over the judiciary. Although the court found he violated attorney conduct rules, it deemed the handling of the case by a panel unjust and a violation of Knudsen's due process rights. Knudsen described the complaint as a political escapade and was supported by several justices, while one dissented, advocating for a public censure and suspension.
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — The Montana Supreme Court has dismissed a case of misconduct against state Attorney General Austin Knudsen, citing violations of proper legal procedure rather than the merits of the allegations involving his conduct.
Last year, a panel appointed by the court determined that Knudsen repeatedly undermined the integrity of the justices while defending a law passed in 2021 that allowed the state's Republican governor to directly appoint judges to fill vacancies.
The panel recommended a 90-day suspension of Knudsen's law license, but the Supreme Court on Wednesday found that Knudsen's due process rights had been breached, specifically pointing out that his chosen expert witness was excluded from proceedings without sufficient justification.
Knudsen, who saw this case as a political maneuver from the outset, expressed relief at the ruling, asserting, We have said it from the very beginning, this was nothing more than a political stunt.
Chief Justice Cory Swanson emphasized the importance of obedience to court orders in his remarks, labeling the ruling a “public admonition.” This directive served as a reminder for all attorneys in Montana, including Knudsen and his subordinates.
The dispute revolved around a broader GOP initiative aiming to reshape the judiciary and had sparked intense political debates across the state. Knudsen’s office had gone so far as to accuse the justices of judicial misconduct during the case, resulting in significant tension.
Despite rejecting the recommendation to impose a suspension, the court's decision still left room for public criticism of Knudsen's actions, particularly in challenging the integrity of the judicial process.
In reflecting on the case during testimony, Knudsen acknowledged that his approach to the representation in the legislative dispute could have been more tactful and diplomatic.
