Today, Disability Rights Montana releases a new report detailing the threat on Montana’s democracy and the rights of disabled Montanans across our state. More detail is available in this press release linked to the right and the report itself found at https://disabilityrightsmt.org/voting/
Issued by: Disability Rights Montana
Facility Address: 1022 Chestnut Street, Helena, MT 59601
Total Facility Size: 11,700 sq. ft.
– Seventeen (17) offices,
– Two (2) lounges
– Two (2) small conference rooms
– One (1) large conference room
– One (1) kitchen
– Men’s two-stall restroom
– Women’s three-stall restroom
– One (1) unisex ADA-accessible restroom
Weekly:
Monthly:
Seasonally (usually April through October)
– Clean all exterior glass in exit doors, vestibule and offices
Weekly:
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Before April 3, 2026, a tour of the building can be arranged by sending a request with contact details via email to: accounting@dr-mt.org
Please submit your quote via email to: accounting@dr-mt.org by April 15, 2026
As a result of a lawsuit brought by Disability Rights Montana and its co-counsel on behalf of two Montana students with disabilities, the State of Montana has agreed to a major change in how Montana schools provide special education to students with disabilities, in compliance with federal law, which will now allow eligible students to continue to receive services until age 22. The Judgment filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Montana enforces the rights of eligible students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a federal law.
IDEA entitles qualified students with disabilities who need modification of what and how they are taught to a “free appropriate public education (FAPE)” in the “Least Restrictive Environment.” This is accomplished through a detailed planning and implementation process documented in the student’s “Individualized Education Program,” commonly called an “IEP.”
All other states already provide education to students with disabilities beyond age 18 and some provide services up to age 26, if the student has not already earned a “regular high school diploma.” A “regular high school diploma” means a diploma that is fully aligned with state standards for high school graduation and is the diploma that most students earn upon completion of high school. For decades, Montana operated under an exception, cutting off special education services at age 18 for most students. Under an agreed judgment settling the lawsuit, the State of
Montana has agreed to end this practice and allow eligible students to continue in school until they either earn a “regular high school diploma” or turn 22 years old.
“Today is a celebratory day for young adults with disabilities, who seek to thrive in their high school education. Thank you for giving me more time to blossom into the remarkable person I am meant to be.” Said one of the students in the case.
“This is a huge win for Montana students,” said David Carlson, Executive Director of Disability Rights Montana. “Students with disabilities were being exited from school before earning a high school diploma and before they were ready to transition to post-secondary employment, education, and independent living. Now students who need it will have the additional time that federal law allows to prepare for success as adults.”
“This change puts students back in control of their future,” said Tal Goldin, Director of Advocacy and lead attorney for the Plaintiffs in this case.
“We are honored to represent the students who brought this important case and took a brave stand not just for themselves, but for hundreds of others. We are also grateful for the generous efforts of our national co-counsel, Gerald Hartman of The Barbara McDowell Social Justice Center, Jason H. Kim of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, and James D. Jenkins, who worked tirelessly to achieve this systemic change for Montana’s students with disabilities.”
What This Means:
• Current high school students with disabilities who may need additional time in high school beyond the traditional four years should contact their IEP case manager to arrange an IEP meeting, review their current IEP, and make appropriate adjustments to plan for the additional time now allowed under the Court’s judgment. This is most urgent for students who will be seniors in the 2025-26 school year starting soon, who should request an IEP as soon as possible. “[A] parent can request an additional IEP Team meeting at any time.” 71 Fed. Reg. 46540, 46676 (Aug. 14, 2006).
• Students with disabilities who were exited from high school during the 2024–2025 school year—either for aging out before age 22 or receiving a modified diploma—must be invited back to school to continue until age 22 if they so choose.
• The Montana Office of Public Instruction (OPI) has already issued binding statewide guidance document to schools about how to comply with the Court’s order.
• Two weeks after OPI issues the guidance document, school districts must send notices to students improperly exited from services during the 2024–25 school year informing them of their rights under the Court’s order and providing a form allowing the student to re-enroll.
• Critically, students with disabilities who were improperly exited last school year (2024-25) only have 30 days after receiving the notice from their school to complete and return the re-enrollment paperwork. The reenrollment form is included at the bottom of the Binding Guidance Document.
• Going forward, OPI must also offer ongoing information, training and technical assistance to parents and schools regarding the requirements under the Court’s order; ensure students and families eligible for the additional services receive them; and monitor compliance with Court’s order on an ongoing basis.
Next Steps
DRMT urges families of students with disabilities who exited high school early during the 2024–2025 school year to proactively contact their schools and get the process for reenrollment started as soon as possible. “Once students receive a notice in the mail, they will only have 30 days to reenroll in school,” explained Michelle Weltman, DRMT attorney for the Plaintiffs. “Students eligible for this additional time will also want to ask for an IEP meeting. Being proactive and going to the school is likely the most effective route to ensure no deadlines are missed and the student’s team is prepared to offer appropriate services without delay.”
For help understanding your rights or the re-enrollment process, contact Disability Rights Montana at 406-449-2344 or visit disabilityrightsmt.org. Students and their guardians may also contact the OPI’s Early Assistance Program at 406-444-5664 with any concerns about the Court’s order.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: David Card, david.card@ndrn.org
Today, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in A.J.T. v. Osseo Public Schools (MN), rejected a more stringent standard for students asserting certain rights under federal disability rights laws.
The Court agreed with the student in the case who argued it was unfair that she and other public school students with disabilities be required to meet a higher level of proof when pursuing certain claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In its ruling, the Court emphasized that nothing in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which protects students with disabilities, “ ‘shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under’ the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, or other federal laws protecting disabled children’s rights.”
NDRN joined with other disability advocacy groups to support student A.J.T. in an amicus brief arguing that the lower, deliberate indifference standard should apply.
“We applaud this monumental decision that affirms the ADA and Section 504 rights of students and sets a clear and widely recognized standard for pursuing these claims,” said Marlene Sallo, executive director of NDRN. “The Court rightly decided that families should not have to clear a nearly impossible legal hurdle to hold schools accountable for failing to meet their obligations under federal disability law.”
# # #
The National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) is the nonprofit membership organization for the federally mandated Protection and Advocacy (P&A) Systems and the Client Assistance Programs (CAP) for individuals with disabilities. Collectively, the Network is the largest provider of legally based advocacy services to people with disabilities in the United States.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Blake de Pastino, Director of Communications, Summit Independent Living, 406-728-1630, x113, BDePastino@summitilc.org
Helena, MT – Leaders from Montana’s disability community will hold a joint press conference regarding the callous actions of Attorney General Austin Knudsen to roll back the civil rights of more than a quarter of Montana residents by his participation in a national lawsuit to abolish Section 504. All press and policy makers are invited to attend.
Where: Disability Rights Montana, 1022 Chestnut Street, Helena, MT 59601
When: Monday, February 24, 2025, 1:00pm
“Section 504 is what gives us a seat at the table, helps us to learn, receive healthcare, and ultimately give back to our communities,” says Opal Besaw, a disabled advocate and author based in Kalispell. “Without Section 504, I would not have received an education.”
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Speakers from across Montana advocating for A.G. Knudsen’s withdrawal from this litigation will include:
Scott Birkenbuel, CEO of Ability Montana and a wheelchair user is exasperated at the stance A.G. Knudsen has taken. “Knudsen’s choice to be part of a lawsuit aimed at eliminating protections of Montanans with disabilities shows an unimaginable level of ignorance for thousands of disabled people who call Montana their home.”
In the fall of 2024, Knudsen joined 16 other state attorneys general in a federal lawsuit, Texas v. Becerra. The lawsuit is requesting the court “declare Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794, unconstitutional” and “issue permanent injunctive relief against Defendants enjoining them from enforcing Section 504.”
“Section 504 is a landmark civil rights law that has protected disabled Americans from discrimination for more than 50 years,” states Molly Kimmel, Director of the Rural Institute for Inclusive Communities at the University of Montana. “At K-12 public schools, at four-year colleges, and at career and technical schools, thousands of Montana students with disabilities receive an education through essential disability-related accommodations that exist because of Section 504. This in turn supports our communities and the future careers of our students.”
Jacob Krissovich, Advocacy and Public Policy Chair of the National Federation of the Blind of Montana expresses grave concerns about the aftermath of such a drastic change. “As both a policy professional and a person who is blind, I am shook by this lawsuit. If successful, it will strip fundamental rights from thousands of Montana children and adults in areas of, healthcare, employment, transportation, and community living.”
“Knudsen’s lawsuit carries an alarming message that the government of Montana does not value people with disabilities. The disability community fought hard to get Section 504 and its original implementing regulations passed in the 1970s. I am disappointed by A.G. Knudsen’s cavalier lawsuit which aims at dismissing the welfare and well being of an entire segment of valued Montanans who significantly contribute to the ongoing success of our daily lives” explained Carlos Ramalho, Executive Director of LIFTT and attorney with hearing and vision disabilities. “Montana’s disability community cannot sit by idly and let one man’s misguided campaign tear down decades of progress.”
“Our community’s resistance is already having an effect,” said David Carlson, Executive Director of Disability Rights Montana and attorney with dyslexia. “Montanans have already sent messages to A.G. Knudsen stating their concerns. Responses from his office desperately try to obscure his attack on disabled people as an attack on transgender people. Yesterday, he and his co-counsel filed a document in federal court trying to claim they were only trying to get Section 504 found unconstitutional ‘as applied,’ not ‘on its a face,’ which to me is a distinction without a difference. Especially, when they turn right around and make it clear they are against 504’s efforts to require people with disabilities be integrated in our communities.”
“This lawsuit is about ending Section 504,” States Tami Hoar, Executive Director of Summit Independent Living. “Any other reason given by A.G. Knudsen’s office is either a red herring or a copy/paste response from someone who has not actually read the filed complaint. Attacks to oppress the disability community are not new to us. Our history shows our ability to mobilize, persevere, and prevail. Reverse is not an available gear.”
The press conference will be live streamed. Link will be available at disabilityrightsmt.org day of event. Following the conclusion of the last speaker, interviews will be available one on one with each speaker and other disability advocates. American Sign Language interpretation will be provided. Please contact Kona Franks-Ongoy to request other accommodations, kona@dr-mt.org, 406-449-2344.
Montana Centers for Independent Living are consumer-driven, non-residential, private 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations providing peer-delivered services to give people with all types of disabilities the tools and resources needed to improve independence, self-confidence, knowledge, skills and access to community resources.
### end ###
Have you faced accessibility challenges in Montana’s state or local government buildings? Whether it’s a city or county building, the DMV, the Capitol, or any other local/state government space, we want to hear about your experiences. Your input will help us understand where we should focus our efforts to make these physical spaces available to all Montana Residents
Your perspective can make a difference—let’s work together for a more accessible future!
If you are unable to fill out the form, call our office and let us know what local or state government building has an accessibility issue.
Disabled Montanans are often unable to participate in the legislative process for a variety of reasons. This is why we have a presence at the legislature. Though we have staff who are part of the disability community, we are not every voice in our community. We are working to increase the number of disabled voices at the legislature and build a more realistic view of what our community experiences. To the extent we are able, we prefer to hand the microphone to others in our community, and that is what we were able to accomplish in the first hearing of HB 186.
Our staff facilitated testimony of a patient currently at the state-run psychiatric institution (Montana State Hospital) and who is directly impacted by this bill. We are working to center the members of the disability community in the conversation of disability related bills as these individuals will be most impacted by the legislative outcome.
Mike Borgshart, the state hospital patient, was the only opponent for this bill and the only person with a disability to testify.
Content warning – the following discusses sexual assault and forced sterilization.
100 years ago, on March 28, 1924, Vivian Buck was born! That should have been a happy day, but for many reasons it wasn’t.
Vivian’s mother, Carrie, was 17 at the time Vivian was born and instead of being supported to be a great mom, powerful people decided to make an example out of her. She was pregnant because she was raped by the nephew of her foster parents. When they learned she was pregnant, her foster parents had her committed to an institution for people labeled “feebleminded” to hide the rape. After giving birth, Carrie was ordered to be forcibly sterilized by the institution’s doctors. With the counter-productive “help” of her assigned attorney who was a proponent of eugenic sterilization and friends with the attorney for the institution that wanted to forcibly sterilize her, Carrie appealed the decision to sterilize her all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The game was fixed with the hospital hand picking her as the test case and assigning an attorney who agreed with the hospital that cleaning the gene pool through forced sterilization was a good thing. The result was Oliver Wendell Holms, arguably the most respected judge in American history, writing the opinion of the highest court in the land in Carrie’s case. In it, he penned one of the most notoriously offensive lines in American jurisprudence:
“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the state for these lesser sacrifices…. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Vivian was that third generation. Her grandmother, the first generation, was allegedly genetically defective because she was institutionalized at the same facility. What was the proof Vivian’s grandmother was genetically defective, she was accused of being a sex worker. Her mother was supposedly the second generation that was unfit to have children because she was labeled feebleminded and promiscuous for having a child out of wedlock after being raped. And finally, a doctor from the institution that wanted to perform the sterilization thought that at 6 months old, Vivian looked “below average” even though she ultimately went on to attend school and was on the honor role. These three generations of poor, rural, white, women were not genetically and morally defective as claimed. I contend, the morally defective ones were Carrie’s rapist, her foster parents, and of course the privileged, white, male, highly-educated doctors, lawyers, and judges who abused the power they had over this family.
Today eugenic motives are present, albeit often unspoken, in our approach to how we fund services, how we limit the ability of people labeled as disabled to make decisions about their own lives and bodies, how we perpetuate medical systems and social structures that create health disparities for some, and how we deploy child protective services. And, it should be stressed, eugenics is also still present in forced sterilizations and end of decision making practices that happen every day across America. While most people have sanitized their language, right under the surface are thoughts that echo the thoughts of Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holms that perhaps it’s not such a big deal if we eliminate the people who “sap the strength of the state.”
