Montana’s Attorney General Austin Knudsen has asked the state Supreme Court to reconsider a landmark 1999 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning federal abortion protections.

Knudsen’s office filed a request for additional briefing in the ongoing state court appeal of three abortion restrictions. A Yellowstone County District Court judge blocked the laws from taking effect in 2021, finding they conflicted with Montana’s constitutional privacy guarantee. The state’s motion argues the Supreme Court should abandon the precedent set in Armstrong v. State, which the attorney general’s office characterizes as judicial overreach.

The Laws in Question

Three state statutes are at the center of the dispute: a measure banning abortion after 20 weeks of gestation; a law requiring women to view an ultrasound before the procedure; and a requirement for informed consent prior to medication abortion, along with a prohibition on mail delivery of abortion drugs. A fourth law bars abortion coverage on health plans sold through the federal exchange but was not included in the preliminary injunction challenge.

Planned Parenthood challenged all three laws in state court and sought a preliminary injunction to block them while litigation continues. Judge Michael Moses granted that request in 2021, concluding the restrictions would impede women’s access to pre-viability abortion.

State’s Constitutional Argument

Knudsen’s filing contends that the 1999 Armstrong decision relied too heavily on federal privacy protections rooted in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey—both of which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned in its 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling. The attorney general’s office argues the state constitution does not independently guarantee a right to pre-viability abortion and that Montana lawmakers should have the authority to set abortion policy through the democratic process.

In a statement quoted by the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, the Department of Justice wrote: “This case is about integrity. The integrity of unborn human lives and the medical profession, to be sure. But the integrity of the judiciary, too. Judges neither make nor unmake democratically enacted laws.”

Abortion Rights Advocates Respond

Planned Parenthood’s legal team counters that the preliminary injunction phase is not the appropriate moment to overturn decades of state precedent. The organization maintains that Armstrong correctly identified abortion as protected by Montana’s constitutional privacy rights, independent of federal law.

“Armstrong was correct in holding that Montana’s right to privacy includes a right to pre-viability abortions,” attorneys for the group told the court, as reported by the Bozeman Daily Chronicle.

Timeline and Next Steps

Knudsen initiated the appeal of the preliminary injunction in January. The state Supreme Court will consider the attorney general’s request for supplemental briefing as it weighs whether to reverse the lower court’s decision blocking the three laws.

The case hinges on whether Montana’s state constitution provides independent protection for abortion access or whether that protection disappeared when the U.S. Supreme Court returned abortion regulation to the states. The outcome will likely shape Montana abortion policy for years and could influence how other state courts interpret privacy rights in their own constitutions.