The Montana Supreme Court granted a writ of supervisory control on January 6, 2026, intervening in a criminal case where a teenage defendant challenged a district court judge's denial of her motion for judicial substitution. The case, *S.L. v. Montana Fourth Judicial District Court* (2026 MT 1), represents a rare use of the court's extraordinary supervisory power over lower court proceedings.
Petitioner S.L., a 16-year-old defendant represented by Assistant Public Defender Alexander H. Pyle, sought the writ after the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula County denied her motion to substitute Judge John W. Larson under Montana Code Annotated § 3-1-804. The Supreme Court stayed the district court proceedings while considering the petition, effectively halting the criminal case until resolution.
The underlying criminal charges stem from an September 30, 2025 Information filed by the state with court permission. S.L. faces four charges: aggravated burglary, assault on a peace officer, resisting arrest, and attempted possession of intoxicating substances while under age 21. The charges indicate a serious criminal matter involving alleged violence against law enforcement.
Justice Katherine Bidegaray delivered the Supreme Court's opinion and order, though the full text of the court's reasoning was not available in the initial filing. The Montana Attorney General's office, represented by Attorney General Austin Knudsen and Assistant Attorney General Michael Dougherty, opposed S.L.'s petition along with Judge Larson himself.
The procedural history reveals that S.L. filed additional briefing with the Supreme Court's permission, submitting a reply brief to address arguments raised by the state in its opposition. This suggests the legal issues involved were complex enough to warrant extended briefing before the high court's decision.
Montana's judicial substitution statute, § 3-1-804 MCA, allows defendants to request a different judge under specific circumstances. The statute typically requires that such motions be filed within prescribed timeframes and based on proper legal grounds. When district courts deny these motions, defendants rarely pursue appellate remedies due to the procedural complexities and time constraints of criminal proceedings.
A writ of supervisory control represents one of the most extraordinary remedies available in Montana's judicial system. The Supreme Court uses this power sparingly, typically only when lower courts have acted outside their jurisdiction, committed clear legal error, or when no other adequate remedy exists. The fact that the high court granted the writ suggests significant legal issues in the district court's handling of the substitution motion.
The Supreme Court's decision to stay the district court proceedings demonstrates the urgency the justices placed on resolving the supervisory control petition. Without the stay, the criminal case could have proceeded to trial or plea negotiations, potentially rendering the substitution motion moot and creating additional complications for all parties involved.
For criminal defendants, the right to seek judicial substitution serves as an important safeguard against potential bias or appearance of impropriety. When defendants believe they cannot receive a fair hearing before a particular judge, the substitution process provides a mechanism to ensure judicial neutrality. The denial of such motions can raise due process concerns, particularly in serious criminal matters.
The case highlights the intersection between criminal procedure and judicial administration in Montana's court system. While judges generally have broad discretion in managing their dockets and proceedings, that discretion is not unlimited when statutory rights are involved. The Supreme Court's intervention suggests the district court may have erred in its interpretation or application of the substitution statute.
The involvement of both the Attorney General's office and the presiding judge as respondents indicates the broader implications of the case for judicial administration. When the Supreme Court exercises supervisory control, it sends a message to the entire state court system about proper procedures and statutory interpretation.
Given S.L.'s age and the serious nature of the charges, the case also raises questions about juvenile justice procedures and protections. While the defendant appeared before the district court as charged, the specific procedures for handling cases involving minors may have factored into the substitution motion and subsequent appeal.
The Supreme Court's decision in this case will likely provide guidance for future judicial substitution motions throughout Montana's court system. District courts will need to carefully follow the statutory requirements and ensure proper legal standards when ruling on such motions, particularly in criminal cases where defendants' liberty interests are at stake.
The resolution of this supervisory control petition will determine whether S.L.'s criminal case proceeds before Judge Larson or transfers to a substitute judge. Either outcome will have significant implications for the defendant's right to a fair trial and the proper administration of criminal justice in Montana.