The Montana Supreme Court ruled June 4 that the state Department of Natural Resources and Conservation must conduct an environmental review of a years-old bison grazing application submitted by American Prairie, rejecting the agency’s attempt to pause a lower court’s directive while the case proceeds.

A Long-Delayed Application

American Prairie first applied in 2019 to graze bison on state-managed lands, but the DNRC never moved to formally evaluate the request. A district court eventually ordered the agency to conduct the required environmental analysis, and DNRC sought a stay of that order from the Supreme Court — a request the justices denied in a 4-3 decision.

The delay has stretched more than six years. Mary Cochenaur, the attorney representing American Prairie, said the agency has simply failed to act. “DNRC has put off making a decision on American Prairie’s permit request for more than six years,” she said.

American Prairie currently manages approximately 900 bison across several herds. The organization has been working to establish a large-scale conservation reserve in north-central Montana, an effort that has drawn persistent opposition from ranching communities and many state officials who argue the rewilding mission conflicts with the region’s agricultural economy.

The Majority’s Reasoning

The four-justice majority — Justices James Jeremiah Shea, Laurie McKinnon, Ingrid Gustafson, and Katherine Bidegaray — concluded that allowing the stay would only extend an application process that had already been left unresolved for an unreasonable period. The agency’s discretion, the majority wrote, was limited only in terms of timing, not in terms of the ultimate decision it could reach on the permit.

Writing for the majority, the justices said that “considering that [American Prairie’s] application would continue to languish if the Order is stayed while DNRC’s discretion is only limited as to when it evaluates the application, we conclude that this factor weighs in favor of denying DNRC’s motion to stay.” The DNRC now has 90 days to complete that environmental review.

Dissenters Raise Statutory and Practical Concerns

Chief Justice Cory Swanson and Justice James Rice authored a joint dissent, arguing that state statute affords the DNRC sufficient discretion that no court can compel the agency to act. They also flagged a practical complication: ongoing developments at the federal level could require American Prairie to remove bison from federal lands, which would in turn affect the scope and relevance of any environmental analysis DNRC might conduct.

Justice Beth Baker filed a separate dissent, though the specific grounds she outlined were not detailed in available case materials.

The 4-3 split reflects a court that has been increasingly scrutinized in its composition and jurisprudence. Earlier this year, a Bozeman attorney was confirmed to the federal bench in Montana amid debate over judicial qualifications — a nomination that drew its own share of controversy. For more on that confirmation, see our earlier coverage of Senate’s confirmation of Katie Lane to the Montana federal bench.

What Comes Next

With the stay denied, DNRC must now begin the environmental analysis within the court-ordered 90-day window. The review will examine the potential impacts of allowing bison to graze on state lands under American Prairie’s management — a first step toward an agency decision that could still go either way.

The ultimate outcome of the permit request remains an open question. DNRC retains the authority to approve or deny the application once the environmental review is complete, and the dissent’s concern about potential bison removal from federal lands suggests the factual landscape could shift before that review concludes.

The case is unfolding against a broader backdrop of tension over land use, wildlife policy, and conservation in Montana, issues that are also surfacing in this year’s congressional races. Both the Republican and Democratic nominees for Montana’s two U.S. House seats are navigating questions about federal land management and agricultural interests as they head toward the November 3 general election.