The Montana Supreme Court issued its decision Monday in *Noland v. State*, case number DA 24-0369, resolving an appeal that challenged the Montana Public Service Commission's regulatory authority over waste disposal services.
Parker Noland, represented by attorneys from the Pacific Legal Foundation, brought the case against the State of Montana, the Montana Public Service Commission, and its commissioners in their official capacities. The defendants included James Brown as commission president, Brad Johnson as vice-president, and commissioners Randy Pinocci, Tony O'Donnell, and Jennifer Fielder. Evergreen Disposal, Inc. intervened in the case as an appellee.
The appeal originated from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District in Flathead County, where Judge Amy Eddy presided over the original case numbered DV-22-1308. The Montana Supreme Court's decision, designated as 2025 MT 294, was submitted on briefs July 30 and decided Dec. 23.
The case drew significant attention from various stakeholders in Montana's waste management and regulatory sectors. Multiple parties filed amicus briefs supporting different positions in the dispute. Montana Solid Waste Contractors submitted an amicus brief through attorney James R. Zadick of Ugrin Alexander Zadick, P.C. in Great Falls.
The Goldwater Institute also participated as amicus curiae, represented by Walter D. Clapp of Honor Coin Law, PLLC in Red Lodge. Additionally, the Cato Institute and Mountain States Legal Foundation jointly filed an amicus brief through attorney Matthew G. Monforton of Monforton Law Offices, PLLC in Bozeman.
The Pacific Legal Foundation's involvement in the case signals the potential constitutional and regulatory significance of the dispute. The organization, known for challenging government overreach and defending property rights, deployed a team of attorneys from multiple offices. Ethan W. Blevins from the foundation's Bountiful, Utah office led the appellant's representation, joined by Jack E. Brown from Arlington, Virginia, and Glenn E. Roper from Highlands Ranch, Colorado.
Defending the state's position, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen's office assigned multiple assistant attorneys general to the case. Michael Russell, Alwyn Lansing, and Thane P. Johnson represented the state appellees from Helena.
Evergreen Disposal, Inc., the waste management company at the center of the regulatory dispute, secured representation through Jacqueline R. Papez of Dry Creek Law Firm, PLLC in Red Lodge.
The case appears to involve fundamental questions about the Montana Public Service Commission's scope of authority in regulating waste disposal services. The commission, established to oversee public utilities and certain transportation services in Montana, has faced various legal challenges to its regulatory jurisdiction over the years.
The involvement of multiple amicus parties suggests the case's outcome could have broader implications for Montana's waste management industry and regulatory framework. Solid waste contractors, policy institutes, and legal foundations rarely coordinate such extensive briefing unless the case addresses issues with potential statewide or national significance.
The Pacific Legal Foundation's participation particularly indicates potential constitutional dimensions to the dispute. The organization frequently litigates cases involving regulatory takings, due process violations, and challenges to agency authority that exceed statutory limits.
While the specific details of the Montana Supreme Court's holding remain to be analyzed from the full opinion, the case represents a significant test of the Public Service Commission's regulatory boundaries. The commission's authority typically extends to traditional public utilities like electrical and telecommunications services, but questions occasionally arise about its jurisdiction over other services.
The timing of the decision, issued just before the year's end, concludes what appears to have been a lengthy appellate process that began with the original district court case in 2022. The case's progression through Montana's court system reflects the complex regulatory and legal issues at stake.
For Montana's waste management industry, the Supreme Court's decision will likely provide important guidance about regulatory compliance and the extent of state oversight. Companies operating in the sector will need to review the court's analysis of the Public Service Commission's authority to ensure their operations align with the clarified regulatory framework.
The case also demonstrates the ongoing tension between state regulatory agencies and private businesses over the appropriate scope of government oversight in various industries. As regulatory agencies nationwide face challenges to their authority, the Montana Supreme Court's reasoning in *Noland v. State* may influence similar disputes in other jurisdictions.