A Montana judge has mooted the state’s would-be TikTok ban before it could block a single viral video.  

U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy on Feb. 20 concluded the case over the legality of the Montana Legislature’s TikTok ban, which had been paused since Molloy temporarily blocked its implementation in 2023. 

Several Montana users of the popular social media platform, along with TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, filed lawsuits days after the ban law was signed. That civil litigation was later combined into a single case against the state, defended by Attorney General Austin Knudsen. The challenge alleged the law violated the First Amendment and overstepped the authority of state government by wading into national security issues. 

Molloy dismissed the case on the basis of a clause in the law, which Gov. Greg Gianforte signed in May 2023, that voided the ban if ByteDance sold a majority share of TikTok to a non-Chinese company. That change of ownership occurred in January. 

The 2023 Legislature’s TikTok ban grew out of concerns about Chinese access to Americans’ data. It was the first statewide attempt to ban TikTok in the United States. 

In a statement on Feb. 20, Knudsen lauded the transfer of ownership that led to the case’s dismissal.

“President Trump, with his years of business and negotiation experience, worked diligently and succeeded in finding the right American company to purchase TikTok and make sure that Montanans and Americans will no longer be spied on by a foreign adversary,” Knudsen wrote. “Today’s dismissal ends years of litigation, brought on by TikTok, and will stop wasting taxpayers’ money.”

The state Department of Justice did not respond to a Montana Free Press request for an interview for this story.

Knudsen’s office signaled its support for the Montana law banning TikTok when it was first heard in the Legislature in February 2023. Department of Justice Crime Information Bureau Chief Anne Dormady testified in support of the bill at its initial hearing. 

“There are grave concerns with the popular app related to national security and China’s influence through TikTok,” Dormandy said. 

The bill passed out of the Legislature with mostly Republican support. Gianforte expressed concerns that the bill’s language might subject it to a legal challenge, but ultimately signed it in spring 2023. The law immediately drew multiple court challenges. Before the ban could take effect as scheduled in January 2024, Molloy blocked it in November 2023. 

That year marked an uptick in the federal government’s scrutiny of TikTok over national security concerns. The Biden administration mandated that agency employees delete the app from government-issued mobile devices in February. And in March, members of Congress peppered TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew with questions about data privacy during a marathon hearing.  

While Montana’s ban languished in court, Biden signed a law in 2024 banning the social media app unless ByteDance sold it within the following 270 days. That law survived a slew of legal challenges, and TikTok ultimately blocked American users for a few hours on Jan. 18, 2025, a day before the federal law required it to. On Jan. 19, Trump assured the company he would issue an executive order that would extend ByteDance’s window to sell. He did.

In 2025, Trump extended the sale window on four separate occasions, allowing TikTok to continue to operate in the U.S. The company finalized a deal on Jan. 22, 2026. 

ByteDance retains 19.9% ownership of the new U.S. entity that owns TikTok. Other investors with substantial shares include technology conglomerate Oracle, private equity firm Silver Lake, and United Arab Emirates-owned investment company MGX. 

That deal made Montana’s 2023 state law moot based on a clause in the state legislation voiding the ban if majority ownership was transferred away from a federally designated “foreign adversary.”

But some legal experts are casting doubt about whether that transfer actually mitigates concerns of Chinese access to Americans’ data.

Timothy Edgar, a cybersecurity expert at Brown University and Harvard Law School, filed an amicus brief in 2024 that argued against forcing ByteDance to divest from TikTok on constitutional grounds. 

Edgar said data privacy concerns had been better addressed at the end of Trump’s first term and early in the presidency of Joe Biden, when pressure from the executive branch forced TikTok to negotiate terms with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. 

“I felt that those restrictions were really quite significant, and no other social media company in the world has ever done anything like that,” Edgar said. Edgar said the forced sale that made Montana’s ban moot could give users a false sense of security. 

“I actually worry that there’s going to be less oversight of TikTok’s data, less pressure to uphold some of the requirements in that data safeguarding agreement that they had,” Edgar said. “And so, in a way, we’re in a worse position now than we were when TikTok was owned by ByteDance.”

Edgar emphasized that potential security risks remain, despite the company diluting its Chinese ownership.

“They focused on the wrong thing,” Edgar said about the supporters of the forced sale. “They focused on who owns the company instead of on what are the real risks? How would a country like China get ahold of data? And what are we going to do to protect our personal data against China? And, you know, TikTok is certainly one potential vulnerability, but there are so many others.”

This article was updated Feb. 26, 2026, to correct the spelling of Anne Dormady’s name, to correct ByteDance CEO Shou Zi Chew’s name, to correct the date TikTok was sold, and to correct the entity that is 19.9% owned by ByteDance.

The post The first-in-the-nation TikTok ban that wasn’t appeared first on Montana Free Press.

When President Donald Trump nominated Katie Lane for a U.S. District Court judgeship in Montana on Feb. 12, he lauded her work since April 2025 as senior legal counsel on the Republican National Committee.  

Trump didn’t mention Lane’s experience in Montana politics, both as an assistant to campaign managers and in court defending Republican legislative policies.

If she’s confirmed, Lane would replace Judge Susan Watters, who announced in 2025 that she will assume senior status later this year.

Lane is a 2010 Bozeman High School graduate and president of her senior class, according to graduation records. In a senior profile, Lane told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle that “it was often hard shooting for the stars and maintaining what I believed” as a Christian.

Her first brushes with political significance began in 2011, when she worked on the successful U.S. House campaign of Steve Daines, now Montana’s senior senator. On LinkedIn, Lane described her campaign work as writing the campaign’s monthly newsletter and “walking in parades.” 

She then interned on Daines’ U.S. House staff in 2013 while pursuing a degree in economics at Furman University.

“I do clearly remember her as incredibly bright and hard-working, and someone who brought so much enthusiasm to her time in our office, which was so appreciated, as she was often the first face visitors saw, or the first voice answering the phone,” said Alee Lockman, Daines’ communications director.

Before graduating from George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School in 2017, she interned at the Bozeman-based Wittich Law Firm, the practice of current Montana Republican Party Chairman Art Wittich, who said Thursday in a statement relayed by the state party that he supports Lane’s nomination.

“Katie is a fantastic choice. Smart and principled. The Senate should confirm her quickly,” Wittich said. The party chairman has said little publicly about federal courts, but Wittich has faulted state courts for blocking conservative state laws passed by Republican lawmakers. 

While working for the Montana Department of Justice in 2022, Lane defended the state Department of Health and Human Services’ policy of not facilitating requested changes to the listed sex of transgender Montanans on driver’s licenses.

State District Court Judge Michael Moses ruled that the state had argued in bad faith, knowing that a 2021 law that made it difficult to amend driver’s licenses was constitutionally vague.

Lane received the brunt of the judge’s frustration about what Moses called the state’s “flagrant disregard” for court orders. At the time, Lane was deputy solicitor general for the Montana Department of Justice, run by Attorney General Austin Knudsen. 

Knudsen gave Lane a strong endorsement for the U.S. District Court position after the Trump nomination was announced. 

“During her two years in my office as deputy solicitor general, Katie played an integral role in defending Montana’s laws and challenging the Biden administration’s unconstitutional mandates,” Knudsen said in a statement. “President Trump could not have made a better pick as I am confident she will bring valuable experience and integrity to the bench and look forward to welcoming her back to the state.”

Similarly, both Daines and U.S. Sen. Tim Sheehy announced support for Lane’s nomination.

Other elements of the legal community have criticized Lane’s nomination. 

The Alliance for Justice, a self-described progressive judicial advocacy group, lodged early opposition to Lane’s nomination based on her nine years of legal experience, which makes her one of the least experienced attorneys nominated by Trump during his second term. Of Trump’s six judicial nominees since January 2026, two have had more than 30 years’ experience, and three have had 16 to 20 years’ experience.

The American Bar Association’s standing committee on judicial nominations recommends that nominees should have at least 12 years of experience.

And what a U.S. District Court judge needs most is trial experience, said Doug James, a veteran attorney in Billings whose grandfather was a state attorney general and state Supreme Court associate justice. Trial work, James said, is most of what a U.S. District Court judge does.

By definition, the country’s 91 US. District Courts are trial courts of general jurisdiction, with 673 judges doing the work. Trump filled 174 district court judgeships in his first term, slightly fewer than former President Joe Biden. In 2025, Trump filled 20 District Court judgeships. 

“This is a tremendous insult to the state of Montana and to the legal profession, because we have thousands of attorneys in Montana,” James said. “And President Trump could not find a single qualified attorney in Montana to appoint?”

Lane hasn’t yet been scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Before the Senate holds a confirmation hearing, the National Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary will provide its own evaluation, which will include input from its Montana members.

The post The political path of U.S. District Court nominee Katie Lane appeared first on Montana Free Press.

GREAT FALLS — Wearing jeans and a black sweatshirt with his father’s diesel shop logo on the front, Roberto Orozco Lazcano, 19, leaned forward on the wooden court bench in a federal courtroom. 

He clenched his hands and tapped his foot on the floor. His younger brothers, Eduardo, 16, and Aaron, 14, and their high school classmates sat beside him, all wearing the same black Orozco Diesel sweatshirts.

The kids whispered and fidgeted. When the brothers’ father, Roberto Orozco-Ramirez, walked in, the room fell silent. 

Orozco-Ramirez surrendered to law enforcement on Jan. 25 after Border Patrol agents had been staged outside his home and business for several days. Originally from Mexico, Orozco-Ramirez is an auto repair shop owner, Little League coach and father of four. He’s been living with his family in Froid for more than a decade. 

The U.S. government alleged in court documents that Orozco-Ramirez had returned to the U.S. illegally after being removed once by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2009. It also accused Orozco-Ramirez of threatening a federal officer when Border Patrol agents, in plain clothes and unmarked vehicles, approached him at his auto shop on Jan. 15. He’s been in jail for more than two weeks.

Orozco-Ramirez’s arrest has rocked Froid, a tiny town in northeast Montana home to just 195 residents. The way the town rallied around the sole Mexican family in town has captured the attention of people far beyond the community. His story has been shared by national media outlets. A coffee shop in Helena donated its proceeds for a day to Orozco-Ramirez’s legal fund. And several people who’ve never met Orozco-Ramirez or his family drove hours to show their support at his hearing.

On Monday, federal Judge John Johnston confirmed that a grand jury had charged Orozco-Ramirez with illegal reentry to the U.S., a felony that carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment and up to $250,000 in fines. People convicted of illegal reentry can also be barred from accessing benefits like obtaining a green card, or from returning to the U.S. The government’s earlier allegation that Orozco-Ramirez had threatened a federal officer, noted in the initial complaint, was not included in the indictment. 

Beyond jail time and fines, deportation is the big concern for many Froid residents. The Orozco boys said their uncles, who were living in Montana, were both deported after being apprehended by Border Patrol in March and July of 2025. Their father’s arrest comes as the Trump administration deploys federal immigration agents in American cities, pushing for mass deportation, sometimes without clear processes. 

In the courtroom on Monday, Orozco-Ramirez pleaded not guilty to illegal reentry. The judge said he could request a future detention hearing, where his lawyer would have an opportunity to advocate for his release. But an attorney representing the federal government argued Orozco-Ramirez should remain in jail, calling him “a flight risk.” 

Froid residents shook their heads in disbelief. 

Surrounding the Orozco boys outside the courthouse after the hearing were almost a dozen friends and neighbors wearing the black sweatshirt with their father’s diesel shop logo. 

T-shirts and sweatshirts with that logo have become a common sight in Froid in the two weeks since Orozco-Ramirez’s arrest, worn by youth and adults not typically prone to taking public stances on immigration issues. His neighbors were eager to telegraph that he belongs.  

“It’s just the right thing to do,” Chase White, who coaches the Froid/Medicine Lake boys’ basketball team, said of wearing the Orozco Diesel shirts. 

The gear has also sparked some pushback, highlighting the complicated dynamics around immigration enforcement unfolding in one small Montana town. 

HOW THE SHIRTS CAME TO BE

Laurie Young, who serves on Froid’s Town Council and works as a school cheer coach, makes custom clothing as a side gig. When her son, in the same grade as one of the Orozco boys, asked what the basketball team could do to show its support, she immediately thought of t-shirts. 

It didn’t take long for Young to make dozens of white long-sleeve shirts with the Orozco Diesel logo on the front and “OROZCO” in big black letters on the back. Inside the Medicine Lake School gym north of Froid, on Saturday night, the Froid/Medicine Lake boys basketball team wore the shirts as they warmed up. Located 12 miles apart, the tiny Froid and Medicine Lake schools combine to form sports teams.

About 250 fans stomped on bleachers and cheered as the Froid/Medicine Lake team faced off against the Bainville Bulldogs, a friendly rival. Aaron Orozco Lazcano grabbed the ball. He paused in a low athletic stance and looked up at the basket. 

At 5 feet 5 inches tall and with a quiet demeanor, Aaron is an unassuming player. He looked down, dribbled around a defender and scored from the three-point line. The gym, packed with more people than Froid’s population, erupted in cheers. Aaron’s brother and teammate, Eduardo, patted him on the back.

Their father — who normally never missed a game, and who often shouted strategy to his sons in Spanish — was hundreds of miles away in Cascade County jail. Their mother, too fearful to leave her home, wasn’t there either. 

Even so, visible support from the community surrounded the boys in the gym. Their coaches wore t-shirts with their father’s auto shop logo. Some fans in the stands wore similar shirts and sweatshirts. Others wore white and gray bracelets with the words “OROZCO STRONG” in big blue letters.

“The shirts the teams were wearing were a big release for the kids,” said Marvin Qualley, a spring wheat farmer and school bus driver in Froid. “They saw the community behind the Orozco family, but they weren’t doing anything. So the shirts were the way for them to show support.”

But on Facebook, some residents questioned whether the clothes were made with taxpayer dollars. Others criticized them as an anti-law enforcement gesture. Young took to Facebook to clarify that she’d paid for them herself.

In Froid, public stances come with risk. Disagreements can cost a local business its customers and a family its livelihood. 

“The population is so small that it can’t be divided by how you voted,” said Froid Mayor Sheri Crain. “We live too close together. If we started drawing lines, you wouldn’t have any friends left. You wouldn’t have community.”

OROZCO BOYS

Their father’s arrest has also thrust the Orozco boys, who are U.S. citizens, into an uncomfortable spotlight. As the story has spread across Montana and beyond, online comments have flowed in both from people looking to support the family and from those who criticize their father for not obtaining legal citizenship. 

“Could have used those 10 years to get his citizenship,” one commenter wrote when Montana Free Press shared the story. “If you’ve been in the country ten plus years, set up a business, and pay taxes and successfully evaded immigration officials that long, I’d say the [Department of Homeland Security] can go to hell,” another commenter wrote. “He sounds like someone that this country wants.”

Roberto Jr. said he wishes more people understood the reality of gaining citizenship in the U.S.

“People have to realize that if citizenship was as easy as going online, filing something and then getting your citizenship, nobody in the United States would be illegal,” Roberto Jr. said. 

The boys say they’re grateful for the community support, but it can also make them feel self-conscious. 

“It’s weird,” said Eduardo, a high school junior. “Going to games, they support us, wearing shirts and sweatshirts and everything, but I just feel like I’m being watched all the time.”

Roberto Jr. said he worries whether he’s “talking too much or laughing too much” in the stands during his brother’s basketball games.  

“I kind of sit there like, ‘Dang, people might think that I’m OK and that we don’t need the help,’” he said. 

But the boys and their mother aren’t OK, family members said. The boys are still shaken by the feeling that Border Patrol was following them, even though they hadn’t violated any laws. In the week leading up to their father’s arrest, classmates and parents said they noticed Border Patrol vehicles outside their home and their dad’s shop.

Aaron and Eduardo were scared enough to stay home from school for a week. Roberto Jr., a freshman at Williston State College in North Dakota, began taking classes entirely online so he could be home with his family in Froid. The three older brothers have tried to work on some of the vehicles left at their dad’s shop, doing small jobs like an oil change or replacing antifreeze, but their skills are nothing like their father’s. At home, they do their best to keep their 7-year-old brother, Ricardo, distracted. 

“We told him that my dad was on vacation in Hawaii,” Roberto Jr. said. 

The hardest part of their father’s arrest, the boys said, is not knowing what could happen next. 

Though deportation proceedings would play out in a separate immigration court, Randall Caudle, an immigration attorney for a Missoula-based law firm, said federal courts will typically dismiss illegal reentry charges if a person is willing to self-deport and return to their home country. But many residents don’t make that decision lightly, Caudle said.

“There have been people being deported to Mexico and going back to their hometown that they haven’t been to in forever and finding it’s controlled by a cartel,” he said. “So they’re going back to a dangerous place that’s very different from what they left and that they’re not familiar with anymore.”

Outside the courthouse after their father’s brief hearing on Monday afternoon, the Orozco boys huddled with the friends who had accompanied them on the 400-mile drive from Froid. 

Ultimately, the hearing left them with more questions than answers. The group made plans to stop for coffee and gas before starting the seven-hour trek home. 

Wearing a mustard-yellow sweater, Jill Joyce walked into the sea of black Orozco Diesel hoodies. She had read about the case and driven three hours from Gallatin Gateway to show her support. She had picked up a friend in Helena, and another friend drove from Neihart, about an hour south of Great Falls. 

“So,” Joyce said, walking up to the Froid residents. “Where can I get a sweatshirt?”

The post With shirts, Froid residents show support for neighbor after Border Patrol arrest appeared first on Montana Free Press.

An Anaconda judge on Wednesday denied an attempt by six Montana media organizations, including Montana Free Press, to make public all of the court documents in the murder case against Michael Brown, the man police say shot and killed four people in Anaconda last summer. 

The shooting took place inside The Owl Bar in the town of about 9,000 in southwestern Montana. The victims were Nancy Lauretta Kelley, 64; Daniel Edwin Baillie, 59; David Allen Leach, 70; and Tony Wayne Palm, 74. Immediately following their deaths, Brown hid in the mountains outside city limits for a week before he was apprehended by law enforcement. Charges against Brown include four counts of deliberate homicide, as well as arson, theft and intentionally evading law enforcement.

During the time that Brown hid from police, District Court Judge Jeffrey Dahood granted a motion to seal all documents in the case, a move that was later lifted for some — but not all — of the case records.

The press had sought to become a part of the criminal case against Brown in a very limited scope, only to ask that the documents be unsealed. Dahood rejected that request Wednesday, saying the media outlets did not show why they would have authority to become a part of the case.

Though Dahood unsealed many of the documents in late August, some remained inaccessible at the request of Smith. Smith argued that because of the “extensive media coverage and public engagement in this case,” the court should continue to seal “numerous documents” to protect Brown’s right to a fair trial.

“Many of the facts and evidence within the State’s possession have not been disseminated publicly and will be crucial to the State’s prosecution of this matter,” Smith wrote. “The details surrounding the commission of the crimes alleged in this case, should they be subject to public dissemination, would greatly prejudice the prospective jury pool and taint the ability to impanel an impartial jury.”

The media coalition includes Montana Free Press; Montana Newspaper Association; Montana Broadcasters Association; Montana Freedom of Information Hotline Coalition; Lee Enterprises, which owns five in-state newspapers; and States Newsroom, which operates the Daily Montanan. 

In their motion, attorneys for the media outlets cited the state Constitution’s right-to-know clause, which entitles the public to view the documents and proceedings of public entities, “except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure.” The media coalition argued the court cannot justify the lack of public access and was errant when it did not allow the press to object to the sealing of the documents before that happened.

President of the Montana Newspaper Association Jim Strauss, who is part of the legal effort to unseal documents, declined Thursday to comment on the motion’s denial prior to speaking with counsel on Friday.

In a Jan. 21 interview, Strauss said the motion was intended to prevent a legal precedent of sealed documents. 

“The press is statutorily entitled to be heard before documents are sealed,” Strauss said. “That did not happen.” 

John Adams, executive director of Montana Free Press, said unsealing the documents “allows journalists to accurately report on what the court is doing, rather than try to explain a case that’s unfolding largely out of public view.” 

“This isn’t just about one case. It’s about whether Montana’s transparency laws mean what they say,” Adams wrote in response to emailed questions. “If court records can be sealed wholesale without notice or findings, that affects every newsroom and every Montanan who relies on open courts to understand how justice is administered in our state.”

Neither Smith nor Brown’s public defenders responded to requests for comment about the motion.

In mid-December, the court rescheduled Brown’s upcoming January trial because Brown “lacks fitness to proceed,” according to a joint motion from the state and defense that was accompanied by a psychologist’s assessment. Brown is currently undergoing a 90-day psychological evaluation with the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services that will conclude in March. 

Montana Free Press is a party to the lawsuit reported on in this story. 

This story was updated Jan. 30, 2026, to correct the name of the Montana Freedom of Information Coalition. 

The post Judge denies Montana media outlets’ motion to unseal all documents in trial of alleged Anaconda killer appeared first on Montana Free Press.

This story was updated on Jan. 28 at 7:09 p.m. to reflect new developments. 

Community members first noticed the Border Patrol cars in early January.

Though Froid — a tiny town in northeast Montana — is just 50 miles from the U.S.-Canada border, Border Patrol cars are not a common sight outside of the occasional gas station stop. About two weeks ago, however, residents told Montana Free Press that the number of Border Patrol vehicles increased. Two cars were stationed outside a local auto repair shop and one near the shop owner’s house, they said.

It didn’t take long for word to spread in the small community of about 195 people that the federal immigration agents were watching 42-year-old Roberto Orozco-Ramirez. The father of four, who is technically a citizen of Mexico, has lived in Froid with his family for more than a decade, long enough that the local auto repair shop, Orozco Diesel, bears his name. 

Orozco-Ramirez, his wife and their four sons are fixtures in the small community. His sons are active in school sports, and Orozco-Ramirez coached baseball Little League teams in his spare time. He built an auto shop where community members say he went above and beyond for customers. Though Orozco-Ramirez worked long hours, Froid residents say, he made time for school and community events, often showing up in his work clothes. 

As of this week — following a sequence of events that is forcing a deeply red town to confront their own complicated beliefs on immigration — it’s unclear if he will be in the United States much longer. 

On Sunday, Border Patrol arrested Orozco-Ramirez and he was transported to Roosevelt County Jail, about 67 miles from his house. The U.S. government charged him with illegal reentry into the country and threatening a federal officer, criminal charges that could ultimately result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, imprisonment or deportation. On Wednesday afternoon, he appeared in federal court in Great Falls. A U.S. Department of Justice lawyer wearing a black suit advocated for Orozco-Ramirez to remain in detention, calling him “dangerous.” Several of the dozen or so Froid residents, who had driven seven hours to show their support for their neighbor, shook their heads.

A public defender rebutted this, referencing a previous statement by the local sheriff stating he “posed no danger to the community.” Court documents say Orozco-Ramirez has no criminal history.

Ultimately, federal Judge John Johnston set a preliminary hearing, where a judge will determine if there is enough evidence for the case to proceed, for Feb. 5 and a detention hearing, to determine whether he should be released on bail throughout his case, on Feb. 9. He will remain in detention until then. 

Exiting the courtroom after the hearing, Orozco-Ramirez’s son, Roberto Orozco Lazcano, 18, hugged his two younger brothers. Neighbors embraced, wiping tears from their eyes. “It’s nonsense,” Brittney Nordlund, who works in Froid Public Schools, said of the allegation that Orozco-Ramirez is “dangerous.”

“They’re lying,” Rachel Sundheim, another Froid resident, said through tears. “He is the role model we want in our community.”

Their decision to travel nearly 400 miles — one way — to the hearing, which lasted all of eight minutes, was just the latest of many community efforts to show their support for their  neighbor. Though the vast majority of Orozco-Ramirez’s neighbors voted for President Donald Trump, who has made vows to deport “illegal aliens” a centerpiece of his administration, the town has rallied to support him — since his arrest they have demonstrated their outrage at Border Patrol through protests, letters to lawmakers, public Facebook posts and now their presence in the courtroom. 

“The community responded more than I ever thought,” said Orozco Lazcano, a freshman at Williston State College in North Dakota, who returned to Froid last week when his dad called and said Border Patrol was staged outside his business. “They’re giving us help I didn’t know we needed.” 

WHO IS ROBERTO OROZCO-RAMIREZ?

Most people in Froid work in agriculture, producing wheat, alfalfa and barley and raising cattle. Others work in the school, post office, bank, or oil fields. Liz Melbourne, who graduated from Froid Public Schools and whose kids now attend school there, described the 0.6 square mile town as a “storybook” community and called the recent incident with Orozco-Ramirez — one of just 11 or so Hispanic residents according to Census data — “eye-opening.”

“I think it pretty much rocked everybody’s world to see something like this,” said Melbourne. On Sunday, just before she learned that Border Patrol agents had taken Orozco-Ramirez away, Melbourne stood for five hours with a handful of protesters on the side of the road near Orozco-Ramirez’s business.

Melbourne, who doesn’t describe herself as Republican or Democrat, said she understood Trump’s immigration policy to be about arresting and deporting people who were living in the U.S. illegally and who had also committed crimes. That’s one reason why Orozco-Ramirez’s detainment came as a shock. 

“They weren’t criminals,” she said. “Roberto is a father, he opened his own business. He has a great family. They’re just model citizens.”

The other shock, for Melbourne and her neighbors, was that Trump’s national immigration crackdown had extended beyond big cities, like Chicago and Minneapolis, and infiltrated her small town. 

“That’s my fear,” she said. “It’s that I’m living in a small town and now this is in my backyard.”

To resident Laurie Young, Orozco-Ramirez and his family embodied the American dream. 

“When they moved here, they never asked for anything,” she told MTFP in an interview Monday, choking back tears. “They bought a home, put their kids in school, they built that business from the ground up. They just worked their butts off. … When I think of people coming to the U.S. for a better life, I just can’t imagine any family doing more than he has.”

Orozco-Ramirez’s diesel shop in Froid provided crucial services to community members who would otherwise have to drive an hour to Williston, North Dakota, for repairs. Keith Nordlund, a technician at a local power plant who attended the hearing with his wife Brittney, said Orozco-Ramirez once worked through the night, and in cold winter temperatures, to repair a school bus that had lost heat. 

“He did it for the school,” Nordlund said. “He did it for the kids to ensure they’d have a safe ride. He’s always looking out for everybody else. He’s doing what he can to help anybody and everybody.”

Nordlund, who’s been in touch with Orozco-Ramirez’s family, said it was obvious that Border Patrol was targeting them over the past month. Orozco-Ramirez’s children, who range in age from second grade to college, told him they couldn’t leave their house without being pulled over.

“Anytime they took off driving, Border Patrol would wait until they’re a ways away, pull them over, check the vehicle, make sure there was nobody else inside of it and then just send them on their way,” he said, adding that Orozco-Ramirez’s children were born in the U.S. and are American citizens. “They would follow them to and from school. It got so bad, all of the kids are no longer in school.” 

In a school of 81 students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, Young said, those  absences felt “loud.” 

Young, another community member, confirmed that Border Patrol was often parked one block from school. “We have three streets in town. There was no avoiding them!” she said

“The kids don’t know what to do for their friends,” she said, adding that her son is friends with Orozco-Ramirez’s son. “And it’s so hard to explain to them. How do you explain that this is the culture of our country right now? There’s no good way.”

Representatives for Border Patrol did not respond to a request for comment on how they interacted with Orozco-Ramirez’s children. 

WHAT HAPPENED?

According to court filings, in March and July, two of Orozco-Ramirez’s brothers were apprehended by Border Patrol in Scobey and Bainville, two other small towns in northeast Montana. Orozco-Ramirez was then identified by Border Patrol agents in the area who believed he was in the U.S. illegally. The complaint alleges that Orozco-Ramirez “was removed” from the U.S. in 2009 by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

On Jan. 15, wearing plain clothes and driving in unmarked vehicles, according to the complaint, Border Patrol agents knocked on the door of Orozco Diesel. Orozco-Ramirez was suspicious of the officers and refused to let them into the building, according to court documents. Border patrol agents also accuse him of yelling threats at them as they left the area and throwing a two-by-six piece of lumber in their direction as they drove away. 

Young was not present at the time of the arrest. But the neighbor was sympathetic of a desire to throw something and yell at plain-clothed agents driving in unmarked vehicles.“ They tried to force their way in. Came back with rifles. If anyone showed up to our door in regular clothes, I would do the same thing,” she said.

On Sunday, the Roosevelt County Sheriff’s Office announced in a Facebook post that a man, later confirmed to be Orozco-Ramirez, had surrendered to local law enforcement after Border Patrol agents were staged near a business in Froid. 

“It’s important to note that the man and his family have been productive members of the community and have had no negative interactions with local law enforcement since they moved here over a decade ago,” the Facebook post reads. “The man posed no danger to the community at any point during this incident.”

The complaint states that there is no record within the Department of Homeland Security that he applied for permission to re-enter the United States after he was removed from the U.S. by ICE in 2009. The complaint also states Orozco-Ramirez “was identified as a Surenos gang member when initially encountered in Logan, Utah.” Representatives for Border Patrol did not respond to questions about how the agency made that determination or what allegedly happened in Utah. Border Patrol made similar gang allegations in three other Montana cases in 2025 that defense attorneys disputed and judges later dismissed.

Alex Rate, legal director of ACLU Montana, said that references to gang affiliation can lack credibility. 

“We have seen that this administration has trumped up allegations of criminal behavior or gang participation in order to justify the detention and removal of an individual who otherwise had no gang affiliation or criminal history,” he said. “It’s been weaponized in a way that’s particularly harmful to immigrants and immigrant communities.”

Froid residents said they were stunned by the gang accusation. 

“That may work in a big city where people don’t know each other,” Young said. “That won’t work here.” 

The penalty for illegal re-entry in the U.S. is up to two years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine, and the penalty for threatening a federal officer is up to six years imprisonment with a $250,000 fine. Either conviction could lead to deportation.

COMMUNITY ACTION AND CONCERN

Just before Orozco-Ramirez was detained Sunday, a handful of Froid community members stood on the side of the road near Orozco Diesel holding signs in support of his family. Passersby honked and waved in support. One flashed a middle finger, according to Melbourne, who attended the protest. 

And hours after the Roosevelt County Sheriff’s Facebook post went up that evening, Froid residents began circulating a digital flyer, showing photos of Orozco-Ramirez and his family, reading “STAND WITH THE OROZCO’S” in big, block letters. Others encouraged people to write and call members of Montana’s delegation expressing concern. Some people, Nordlund said, collected donations to cover Orozco-Ramirez’s legal fees; others organized a meal train for his family. Young asked people to share personal statements and photos showing Orozco-Ramirez’s community involvement, should they be helpful to the family in court. 

A sample email template addressing Montana elected officials that’s circulating among Froid residents describes Orozco-Ramirez as “a respected and deeply rooted member of the community” and encourages Montana lawmakers to review his case. It also asks leaders for guidance “in determining whether any lawful pathways may exist that could allow Mr. Orozco Ramirez to pursue legal status.” Nordlund, whose son is friends with Orozco-Ramirez’s son, said he sent the email to Gov. Greg Gianforte and Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy.

Attending the hearing on Wednesday was the next logical step. Some neighbors carpooled in large SUVs. Orozco-Ramirez’s sons drove together, leaving their terrified mother and second-grade brother back in Froid. Kate Eby, a nurse in Great Falls who had never met Orozco-Ramirez, was amongst their midst. She said she heard about the hearing in Great Falls from a coworker who lived in Froid. She made sure to attend and show her support.

“It’s easy to look at Minneapolis and say it’s far away, and that doesn’t happen here,” she said. “But it does. And it’s not the same. Compared to big cities, we’re lacking resources. We’re lacking numbers. But to have community in Montana, the boundaries have to be a little bit bigger. I wanted the family to know we’re here.”

When people are taken by law enforcement, transferred to facilities and deported, she said, it’s hard to know where they end up.

“Paying attention like this keeps people safe,” she said. 

Nordlund, who expressed his support for Orozco-Ramirez on Facebook, said he’s mostly heard from people who want to help but has also received some criticism.

“They said, ‘I can’t believe you’re helping them. I can’t believe you’re doing this,’” he told MTFP. “I said, ‘You know what? Up until six months ago, I didn’t know Roberto was illegal. And he is my friend. His status doesn’t change that I am his friend.’ Do I agree with him being here illegally? No, I actually don’t. But all I can try to do is help him become legal.” 

The post When Border Patrol arrested a beloved mechanic in Froid, Montana, neighbors were forced to reckon with national immigration policy appeared first on Montana Free Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided with Montana police on Wednesday in a case over when officers can enter a home without a warrant if an emergency might be unfolding inside.

The unanimous high court found officers acted lawfully when they went into the home of William Case, who was shot and wounded after officers entered his home in 2021.

Police were responding to a call from Case’s former girlfriend, who feared he might have killed himself. They entered his home after knocking on the door produced no response. An officer fired after Case threw open a closet curtain while holding an object that looked like a gun, according to court documents. A handgun was later found in a nearby laundry basket.

Case was charged with assaulting an officer but argued that the evidence against him should be tossed out because officers didn’t have a warrant.

The Montana Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the officers needed only to reasonably suspect someone required emergency help. Case appealed to the justices and asked them to require a higher probable cause standard, similar to criminal investigations.

The justices rejected that argument. They found that the standard set by the state’s highest court was too low but that the Montana officers’ actions were nevertheless “objectively reasonable” under a standard set in a previous Supreme Court case.

The opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan noted that entering during an emergency doesn’t allow police to search beyond what’s needed to help and keep officers safe.

The post Supreme Court sides with Montana police on warrant requirements during emergencies appeared first on Montana Free Press.

Montana’s attorney general went too far in revising the language for a proposed ballot initiative calling for nonpartisan court races, the state’s high court ruled Thursday.

For the second time in a month, Montana Supreme Court justices ruled that Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, needlessly amended initiative ballot language pertaining to the state’s nonpartisan judicial elections.

At issue is the second of two proposed ballot initiatives aimed at keeping political party affiliation out of Montana judicial races. The effort follows failed attempts by Republicans in the state Legislature to pass laws allowing judicial candidates to declare a political party.

In the case of Constitutional Initiative 131, proposed by Montanans for Fair and Impartial Judges, the justices faulted Knudsen for not offering a reason for changing the ballot language. 

“The issue is not whether the attorney general correctly concluded MFIJ’s proposed Statement failed to meet the requirements,” the justices ruled, “but whether the attorney general made that conclusion at all.”

Explaining the decision to change the ballot language, Knudsen’s staff in court argued that he rewrote that statement to improve and better explain it. That’s not the AG’s job, according to the court. If the petitioners’ ballot language is clear and impartial, justices said the language should be left alone.

“CI-131 proposes a three-word amendment to the Montana Constitution, specifying that ‘Supreme Court justices and district court judges shall be elected in nonpartisan elections,’” the justices’ unanimous order read. 

The attorney general amended the ballot language with his own interpretation of what a nonpartisan ballot means to voters: “A non-partisan election prohibits labeling candidates on the ballot according to the political party the candidate aligns with, including labels like independent.” 

Petitioners balked at Knudsen’s amendment, arguing that it suggests judicial candidates are hiding a partisan affiliation. The attorney general added similar language to another petition, CI-132, which also attempts to secure nonpartisan elections within state law. Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts proposed CI-132. The state Supreme Court decided in November that language added to that initiative by Knudsen would “mislead voters and prevent them from casting an intelligent and informed ballot.”

In its ruling Thursday on CI-131, the court issued new ballot language for CI-131: “This constitutional initiative would require that Montana Supreme Court and district court elections remain nonpartisan. Since 1935, state law has required that these elections be held without political party affiliation. This amendment would add that rule to the Montana Constitution, so it could only be changed by another constitutional amendment approved by voters.”

The post Montana Supreme Court says attorney general overstepped in rewriting ballot language on nonpartisan court races appeared first on Montana Free Press.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen went too far in editing ballot language for an initiative calling for nonpartisan court elections, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

With two judges dissenting, the justices sided with Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts, ruling that changes Knudsen made to Constitutional Initiative 132 would “mislead voters and prevent them from casting an intelligent and informed ballot.” 

The initiative, if approved by voters, would amend nonpartisan court races into the Montana Constitution. In October, Knudsen approved CI-132 for signature gathering. To qualify for the 2026 November ballot, the petition needs 60,000 Montana voters to sign on.

But the attorney general also changed the ballot language for CI-132. Knudsen’s language states that “a non-partisan election prohibits labeling candidates on the ballot according to the political party the candidate aligns with,” suggesting that all judicial candidates align with a political party and the initiative would prohibit disclosure.

“We conclude the Attorney General’s proposed Statement does not meet the requirements of [the law], because his wording does not fairly state to the voters what is proposed within CI-132,” Justice James Shea wrote for a four-judge majority.

Chief Justice Cory Swanson and Justice Jim Rice sided somewhat with Knudsen. The attorney general had taken issue with the original CI-132 ballot language suggesting that judicial races would by law “remain” nonpartisan if the initiative passed. Nonpartisan races are the current Montana public policy, but there is no language in the Montana Constitution requiring nonpartisan races for judgeships at all levels.

“This is a proposed amendment of the Constitution, and use of the word ‘remain’ conveys the idea that the Constitution currently provides for nonpartisan elections, which is incorrect,” Rice said in his dissent.

In his dissenting opinion, Swanson connected Knudsen’s subjective assessment of undisclosed judicial partisanship with the well-plied allegations of political bias in the courts made by conservative politicians, including the attorney general. Knudsen has blamed activist judges for the justice department’s high-profile court losses on cases concerning climate change and abortion.

“The attorney general’s description implies the candidate will in fact be affiliated with an organized political party, but that affiliation will remain hidden from the voters,” Swanson said in his dissent. “While I understand this is the working theory of those who advocate for partisan judicial elections — remove the screen which is obscuring the judicial candidate’s loyalties — this theory has not been established as fact for the purposes of the official ballot statement informing voters of the proposed amendment’s substance.

“The proponents and opponents will both argue the merits of this point, but the ballot statement should be as clear as possible and divorced from the campaign.”

Knudsen was right about striking the word “remain” from the original CI-132 language, Swanson concluded.

The court’s majority was less literal than Rice and Swanson about the application of “remain.” Nonpartisan judicial races are the status quo, Shea wrote. Passage of CI-132 would keep court races nonpartisan. 

“It does not mislead voters as to what the Montana Constitution currently requires but provides the context that judicial elections are currently nonpartisan and this amendment, if passed, would maintain that status quo,” Shea wrote in the majority opinion. “As we noted above, the current law is the status quo.”

The court unanimously sided with Knudsen’s rejection of a separate proposed ballot issue for making two substantive changes to the Montana Constitution that weren’t closely related. Ballot Issue 6 required that any new court created be staffed with judges who were elected, not appointed. It also required judicial elections to be nonpartisan.

Knudsen argued that the Ballot Issue 6 subjects would have to be voted on separately to avoid “logrolling” unrelated constitutional amendments into a single vote, potentially confusing voters, or persuading voters to approve a legal change they dislike to obtain a change they do.

Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts also drafted Ballot Issue 6. The group said in a press release Tuesday evening that it was grateful for the prompt ruling on CI-132.

MNC also partnered with another petition group, Montanans for Fair and Impartial Judges, on Oct. 6 to sue over similar attorney general edits to Constitutional Initiative 131, a petition to make nonpartisan races constitutionally secured for state Supreme Court and district courts. That lawsuit remains undecided.

The initiatives follow several failed attempts by Republican legislators earlier this year to allow judicial candidates to declare party affiliation. GOP lawmakers have accused the courts of liberal bias after several laws passed by the Legislature in recent years have been ruled unconstitutional.

The post Attorney general’s edits to ballot initiative went too far, Montana Supreme Court rules appeared first on Montana Free Press.