This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The Montana Legislature passed housing reform bills related to zoning and land use planning in the hope of solving D's housing problems. P filed a complaint alleging several facial challenges to the constitutionality of the housing reform bills. P is made up of property owners who live in single-family neighborhoods. P's principal contention was that the housing reform unfairly burdened single-family residential neighborhoods with urban growth and accomplished this by undermining the Montana Land Use Planning Act (MLUPA)-municipality citizens' right to know and participate during the land-use planning and approval process. P prayed for declaratory relief and a preliminary and permanent injunction. The District Court preliminarily enjoined the implementation and enforcement of two housing reform bills. D appealed. This Court, in MAID I, reversed the District Court's decision and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, Shelter WF, the Montana League of Cities and Towns (the League), David Kuhnle, and Clarence Kenck intervened with leave of court to defend the housing reform statutes. The District Court found the claim justiciable and granted P's motion on Count I. Shelter WF appeals this ruling, arguing that P's claims were nonjusticiable and the District Court's declaratory judgment was an advisory opinion. In Count II, P claimed that the MLUPA infringed on the public's right to participate and right to know under Article II, Sections 8 and 9, of the Montana Constitution, because it deemed site-specific project approval ministerial and unconstitutionally curtailed public participation. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of P on Count II because the statutory scheme governing a planning administrator's approval process for site-specific developments violated Article II, Section 8, of the Montana Constitution. The decisions called for the exercise of judgment without requiring notice and allowing public input. On appeal, the League argues that the MLUPA's public participation sections were not ripe for review because municipalities are not required to implement localized participation plans until 2026. Shelter WF and the League also contend that the 2025 Senate Bill 121, 2025 Mont. Laws ch. 555, amending the MLUPA's public participation provisions, mooted the District Court's decision under Count II. In Count III, P alleged violations of equal protection on two grounds. First, the housing reform bills irrationally burden parties not protected by private restrictive covenants. Second, the MLUPA arbitrarily created new regulations for communities based on population. The District Court concluded that MAID failed to establish under either argument that the groups were similarly situated. P appealed and argues that the District Court failed to fully and properly analyze the purported classes' similar situations, other than the factor constituting the discrimination.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.