Filed Date: Sept. 1, 2023
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case challenging Montana House Bill 937, which imposed onerous licensure and regulatory requirements on abortion clinics.
On September 1, 2023, All Families Healthcare, Blue Mountain Clinic, and a certified nurse practitioner sued the State of Montana, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, and its Director in his official capacity (collectively “DPHHS”) in the Montana First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County. Plaintiffs challenged House Bill 937 (“HB 937”), slated to go into effect on October 1, 2023, which directed DPHHS to license and regulate abortion clinics, and to promulgate regulations governing their licensure. Plaintiffs alleged that although HB 937 classified abortion clinics as regulated “health care facilities,” it did not clearly alter existing state law permitting clinics to provide care without additional facility licensure, creating confusion and uncertainty as to whether licensure was required. Plaintiffs further alleged that, because DPHHS had not proposed any regulations for licensure, it was impossible to determine or comply with any such requirements. Plaintiffs also alleged that HB 937 violated several provisions of the Montana Constitution: (1) the right to privacy, (2) the right to equal protection, (3) due process of law (void-for-vagueness), (4) the inalienable right to seek safety, health, and happiness, and (5) the right to individual dignity. Represented by the ACLU of Montana, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and private counsel, Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, a temporary restraining order, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. The case was assigned to Trial Court Judge Christopher David Abbott.
Simultaneously to the complaint, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction arguing they were likely to succeed on the merits under the Montana Constitution, and they and their patients would suffer irreparable harm if HB 937 was enforced during the pendency of litigation.
On September 22, 2023, DPHHS filed a motion to dismiss. DPHHS alleged that Montana had the police power to regulate medicine, medical providers, and medical procedures. Furthermore, DPHHS claimed that Plaintiffs lacked standing because HB 937 was not self-effectuating, and that because DPHHS had not promulgated any administrative rules to guide implementation, Plaintiffs had not suffered irreparable harm.
On November 15, 2024, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, finding that HB 937 likely violated the Montana Constitution.
On January 14, 2025, DPHHS appealed the preliminary injunction to the Montana Supreme Court. Following briefing, the court upheld the preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of HB 937 pending a final decision on the merits. Applying strict scrutiny, the court held that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their equal protection claim because HB 937 treated abortion care differently from medically identical miscarriage care without compelling justification.The court further concluded that the remaining requirements for a preliminary injunction, including a likelihood of irreparable harm, a balance of equities in Plaintiffs’ favor, and alignment with the public interest, were satisfied. 2026 MT 64
The case is ongoing as of April 2026.
Summary Authors
Danica Fong (2/22/2025)
Hannah Grosserichter (4/15/2026)
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 1, 2023
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All Families Healthcare, Blue Mountain Clinic, and a certified nurse practitioner
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Center for Reproductive Rights
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Other Dockets:
Montana state trial court DV-23-592
Montana state supreme court DA 25-0040
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
Reproductive rights:
Reproductive health care (including birth control, abortion, and others)
Case Summary of All Families Healthcare v. Brereton, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/45847/ (last updated 4/15/2026).