SB 52 would create a new Montana Court of Chancery as a specialized court within the state judicial system. The court would be given jurisdiction over certain constitutional and election-related challenges, land-use disputes, and a defined set of higher-value business and commercial cases, including contract disputes, securities matters, trade secrets, UCC transactions, shareholder derivative actions, commercial class actions, banking disputes, insurance coverage disputes, and arbitration-related motions. The bill also allows the court to use mediation and arbitration, adopt streamlined procedures, and generally aims to resolve cases within 150 days unless extended for complex matters.
The bill establishes a three-judge chancery court with judges appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate, serving staggered six-year terms, with initial shortened terms to stagger the court’s start-up. Judges would need qualifications comparable to Montana Supreme Court justices and would receive salaries set at 20% above an associate justice’s salary. The court would be headquartered in Helena, with designated trial locations in Billings, Great Falls, and Missoula, and could permit remote proceedings. The Montana Supreme Court would supervise the court’s activities, while the governor would fund judges’ salaries and expenses through appropriations.
In terms of state law impact, SB 52 would add a new Title 3 court structure and create a parallel forum for certain cases currently heard in district court. It would require transfer of concurrent-jurisdiction cases to chancery court on motion, alter how some constitutional, land-use, and commercial disputes are assigned, and create new appointment, compensation, and procedural rules for the court. The bill is temporary in part: the initial staggered-term structure and related bracketed language would terminate June 30, 2031, while the act itself would take effect July 1, 2025.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of the idea that specialized judges and streamlined procedures would improve the quality and timeliness of justice and enhance Montana’s economic competitiveness. However, the voting history shows the bill was tabled in Senate Judiciary by a 6-0 vote and later died in process, indicating that it did not advance despite the stated policy goals. The absence of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials limits direct evidence of debate, but the procedural outcome suggests the proposal did not gain sufficient support to move forward.
The main points of contention likely center on whether Montana should create a separate chancery court at all, whether concentrating constitutional, land-use, and business disputes in a specialized court would improve or complicate access to justice, and whether the proposed structure raises concerns about cost, judicial selection, or overlap with district court jurisdiction. The bill’s broad business jurisdiction, mandatory transfer provisions, expedited timelines, and higher judicial compensation are all features that could draw scrutiny from lawmakers concerned about separation of powers, court administration, and the practical need for a new court system.
SB 52 would create a new specialized court and amend Montana’s judicial framework by placing certain constitutional, land-use, commercial, and arbitration-related disputes within the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. It would affect litigants in business, property, and election-law matters, shift some cases out of district court on motion, and establish new rules for judicial appointments, compensation, venue, and case management under Title 3.
The bill’s stated purpose is positive and reform-oriented, emphasizing faster, higher-quality adjudication and economic competitiveness. But the legislative outcome was unfavorable: the Senate Judiciary Committee tabled the bill unanimously, and it ultimately died in process. That suggests the proposal did not secure enough support, even though no committee transcript is provided here to show the specific arguments made.
Likely areas of disagreement include the need for a separate chancery court, the breadth of its jurisdiction over business and land-use disputes, and whether the court would improve efficiency or instead add another layer to the judicial system. The bill’s proposed judge salaries, governor-led appointment process, mandatory transfer of certain cases, and expedited 150-day resolution target may also have raised concerns among opponents about cost, independence, and feasibility. Supporters appear to be those favoring judicial specialization and faster resolution of complex cases, while the tabling vote indicates committee members were not persuaded to advance it.