## Facts

- Montana administered a state-funded General Assistance (GA) program for indigent persons not covered by federal categorical aid.
- The Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) proposed regulations tying GA eligibility to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) guidelines, which would have narrowed eligibility.
- During litigation over the proposed rules, the legislature enacted House Bill 843 (1985), which (1) eliminated GA for nondisabled, childless individuals under age 35 and (2) sharply limited GA for nondisabled, childless individuals ages 35–50.
- A nonprofit organization representing GA recipients and applicants challenged the statute and sought to enjoin its implementation on state constitutional grounds.
- The district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the challenged statutory provisions, reasoning that the Montana Constitution protects access to assistance for basic necessities.
- The state agency director appealed from the preliminary injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the Montana Constitution creates a judicially enforceable obligation for the state to provide assistance sufficient to meet basic necessities for indigent persons.
2. Whether a statute that categorically eliminates or severely restricts GA for broad classes of needy adults likely violates that constitutional obligation.
3. Whether the district court properly granted a preliminary injunction based on likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court recognized a state constitutional duty to provide for the basic subsistence needs of the “deserving poor,” treating the relevant constitutional provisions as enforceable rather than purely aspirational.
- The categorical elimination of GA for nondisabled, childless adults under 35, and the severe restrictions for ages 35–50, presented serious constitutional infirmities because they risked leaving some truly indigent persons without any means to obtain basic necessities.
- The court agreed that loss of food, shelter, and other necessities constitutes irreparable harm and supported injunctive relief pending resolution on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- The Montana Constitution imposes an enforceable obligation on the state to ensure a minimally adequate safety net for indigent persons who cannot secure basic necessities.
- Legislative discretion over welfare program design and eligibility is broad but not absolute; the state may not wholly withdraw assistance in a way that leaves needy persons destitute.
- A preliminary injunction is appropriate where plaintiffs show a substantial likelihood of success on a constitutional claim and a threat of irreparable harm from deprivation of basic subsistence.

## Conclusion

The court held that Montana’s Constitution requires the state to provide minimal assistance necessary for survival to indigent persons who cannot meet basic needs and affirmed an injunction against statutory provisions that categorically eliminated or drastically restricted general assistance for certain classes of needy adults.


Butte Cmty. Union v. Lewis, 219 Mont. 426, 712 P.2d 1309 (Mont. 1986)