A Montana attorney challenging Yellowstone National Park’s bison management plan is asking a federal court to include text messages sent by the park’s superintendent to the governor as evidence in the state’s ongoing lawsuit, arguing the communications suggest park officials had already settled on a course of action before the formal planning process concluded.

Background on the Dispute

Montana filed suit against Yellowstone National Park and the U.S. Department of the Interior on December 31, 2023, contesting the creation of the park’s Bison Management Plan. The state has long been at odds with federal managers over bison population levels and the movement of animals across park boundaries into Montana, where the Department of Livestock oversees disease control and livestock protections.

Bison that migrate out of Yellowstone into Montana carry the risk of transmitting brucellosis to cattle — a concern that has driven decades of tension between state agriculture interests and federal wildlife managers. Montana officials have pushed for tighter controls on herd size and migration, while the park has pursued a management framework that critics say prioritizes ecological goals over ranching impacts.

The Text Messages

At the center of the latest court maneuver are four text messages sent by the Yellowstone superintendent to the Montana governor in 2023 — communications that the state’s legal team says are revealing about how the bison plan took shape. Attorney Lindsey Simon filed a brief in U.S. District Court in Billings on July 2, asking the court to add seven exhibits to the administrative record in the case.

Simon argued on behalf of the Montana Department of Livestock that the superintendent’s texts to the governor demonstrate that federal decision-makers had effectively made up their minds before the formal process wrapped up. That argument, if accepted by the court, could bolster Montana’s claim that the planning process was procedurally flawed — a common legal theory in challenges to federal agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Including communications outside the official administrative record is a significant ask in federal administrative law cases. Courts typically limit review to the record compiled by the agency during its decision-making process, but exceptions exist when a party can show that relevant materials were improperly excluded or that the agency acted in bad faith.

What’s at Stake

The lawsuit touches on one of the most persistent conflicts in Montana’s relationship with federal land managers. Yellowstone’s bison herd is the largest wild bison population in the country and holds both ecological and cultural significance, but its size and movement patterns have long been contentious for neighboring ranchers and state livestock officials.

Montana’s position has consistently been that federal managers set population targets that prioritize park interests without adequately accounting for the agricultural and public health consequences outside park boundaries. The state wants greater say in how the herd is managed and how many animals are allowed to leave the park each year.

The July 2 filing keeps the legal dispute active and adds a new dimension to the case: whether private communications between a senior federal official and a state governor can serve as evidence that the formal rulemaking process was, in the state’s framing, a foregone conclusion rather than a genuine deliberation.

What Comes Next

The U.S. District Court in Billings will need to rule on whether the seven proposed exhibits — including the superintendent’s texts — may be added to the administrative record. That procedural question could shape how the broader case proceeds and what evidence the court ultimately considers when evaluating Montana’s challenge to the Bison Management Plan.

Governor Greg Gianforte has maintained a firm posture toward federal land management agencies throughout his tenure, and the bison lawsuit fits within a broader pattern of Montana asserting state interests against federal action. The case is being watched closely by agricultural groups and public lands advocates alike as it works through the federal courts.

No trial date has been publicly announced, and the litigation is expected to continue through the remainder of 2026.