Republican Public Service Commissioner Brad Molnar filed a motion in Lewis and Clark District Court on Monday seeking to block a one-year, unpaid suspension imposed on him by Gov. Greg Gianforte, escalating an already unusual conflict between a statewide elected official and the state’s chief executive.

Molnar asked Judge Mike Menahan to issue a preliminary injunction that would prevent the governor from appointing a replacement and bar the PSC from seating any such appointee while the legal challenge proceeds.

Background on the Suspension

The governor’s action followed a formal request from the PSC majority. A misconduct investigation report adopted by the commission in May recommended both a suspension and mandatory professional training for Molnar. The report contained serious allegations, including a claim that Molnar told a female employee he could find out where she lived and photograph her children while they slept, and that he made references to “Topless Tuesdays” in the workplace.

Gianforte acknowledged the suspension was without precedent in Montana but said Molnar’s conduct was equally unprecedented. The governor’s office has not provided a timeline for when he might name a replacement, saying only that he continues to evaluate next steps.

Molnar’s Due Process Claim

Molnar’s central legal argument is that he was denied basic due process. He contends he was not given the opportunity to confront or cross-examine his accusers before the PSC adopted the misconduct report and the governor acted on it.

Notably, the identities of his accusers were not disclosed to him until a federal court ordered it on June 16, 2026 — more than six weeks after the May 6 misconduct hearing had already taken place. Molnar argues that sequence of events made it impossible for him to mount a meaningful defense before the suspension was handed down.

Whether a governor has the authority to suspend an independently elected statewide official — and under what procedural constraints — is a question Menahan will now have to address.

A Five-Member Commission Under Pressure

The PSC is composed of five commissioners, each elected by district. All five are currently Republicans. Despite that shared partisan affiliation, the commission’s majority moved against one of its own members, a split that underscores the personal nature of the underlying dispute.

The timing is significant. The PSC currently has a major proceeding pending before it: the proposed $3.6 billion merger between NorthWestern Energy and Black Hills Energy, a transaction that would reshape Montana’s utility landscape. Any disruption to the commission’s composition — whether through Molnar’s continued suspension or a gubernatorial appointment — could affect how that case proceeds and how votes are cast.

Gianforte has been an active presence on energy and utility matters in Montana, most recently through an executive task force that produced a report outlining a path to expand the state’s power supply. That context makes the governorship’s potential influence over PSC composition a point of heightened interest. Details on the task force’s energy recommendations can be found here.

What Comes Next

The immediate question before the district court is whether Judge Menahan will grant a preliminary injunction, which would freeze the status quo while the merits of Molnar’s challenge are fully litigated. If granted, Molnar would remain seated — even without pay — and no replacement could be installed in the interim.

If denied, the governor could move forward with appointing a temporary commissioner, raising a different set of questions about how an appointed member would interact with the elected commissioners on significant pending cases, including the NorthWestern-Black Hills merger.

The governor’s office has not indicated whether it intends to oppose the injunction request or when it expects to respond formally in court. No hearing date had been publicly set as of the article’s publication Monday.

The case draws attention to largely uncharted territory in Montana law regarding the discipline and removal of elected constitutional officers — a question the courts may now be compelled to answer for the first time.