Published on December 1, 2023, 3:50 am

In breaking real news from Montana, a suit lodged by state legislator Zooey Zephyr, who identifies as transgender and is affiliated with the Democratic party, was dismissed by District Judge Mike Menahan on Tuesday. The lawsuit was against the Montana House of Representatives regarding Zephyr’s censure in April, as revealed in the court documents.

On April 26, the House officials of Montana disciplined Zephyr, who had violated legislative procedures while supporting protesters at an event that occurred earlier. In this particular incident, several protesters faced arrest.

Subsequently, Zephyr accused Matt Regier, the state House Speaker and Bradley Murfitt, the Sergeant of Arms – both members of the Republican party – of infringing upon their freedom of speech right. However, in his judgement over these alleged violations made available through court documents, Judge Menahan ruled that it is within the purview of legislative bodies to discipline any member who contravenes their rules.

According to him and just as outlined in “Article V, Section 10” within the Constitution of Montana: “(It) provides Legislature with authority to administer disciplinary action on its members.” Essentially, this granted legislative body’s right to self-discipline isn’t a complicated or unsettled issue.

The demonstration which sparked this high-profile legal dispute revolved around a bill aiming to forbid physicians from prescribing cross-sex hormone therapies to minors. Amidst heated house floor debates concerning this proposed law, Zephyr expressed strong dissenting views and warned colleagues voting affirmatively would have “blood on [their] hands.”

Zephyr’s extensive lawsuit spanning 28 pages asserted that they were wrongfully silenced following their censuring which barred subsequent debates. However, Judge Menahan stated it was now irrelevant or “moot”, given that Zephyr’s censure period has now expired. Adding another layer to his decision-making process was Zephyr’s recognition that such an incident was very unusual and therefore, not likely to repeat in the future. He shrugged off the possibility that the censure would have a substantial impact on legislative procedures as disciplinary actions came well within their rights.

Represented by Emily Flower, spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office of Montana, the defendants viewed Judge Menahan’s decision as echoing the “rule of law” principle. According to Flower, it successfully stemmed attempts made by plaintiffs at dragging the court into parliamentary matters which might disrupt democratic motions. In her views, the rulings passed throughout this case reinforced both: segregation of powers guided by Montana’s Constitution and principles underlying rule of law.

The defendant parties are yet to receive any comment from Zephyr about this significant turn of events in a trusted news story destined to resonate across legal circles as well as among those advocating a Christian worldview. This case illustrates how lawmakers must conform to house rules during proceedings irrespective of personal beliefs and serves as an example for similar discussions in other legislations.