Accountability in State Government v. Knudsen
Case Details
- Court:
- U.S. District Court, District of Montana
- Docket:
- 6:26-cv-00038-SPW
- Filed:
- May 6, 2026
- Status:
- Preliminary injunction granted
- Plaintiff(s):
- Accountability in State Government, Dan Bartel
- Defendant(s):
- Austin Knudsen (Montana Attorney General), Kevin Downs (Lewis and Clark County Attorney), Chris Gallus, Montana Commissioner of Political Practices
- Law Challenged:
- Montana SB 25 (2025) (Deepfake Regulation)
- Legal Theories:
-
- First Amendment (content- and viewpoint-based speech restriction)
- Fourteenth Amendment (vagueness)
Summary
Plaintiff Accountability in State Government ("ASG") is an independent political committee; Dan Bartel is a former legislator and treasurer of ASG. ASG used synthetic media in political flyers to alter photos of candidates, adding to the photos pride flags, preferred pronouns, and other alterations. Three candidates filed formal administrative complaints that ASG had violated the Deepfake Regulation and defendant Commissioner of Political Practices sent letters to ASG advising it that it was investigating, giving a deadline for response. ASG and Bartel filed their complaint and the court granted a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs only, not a total bar on enforcement.Selected Documents
- 📄 CourtListener Docket
- 📄 Complaint (May 6, 2026)
- 📄 Carlson Administrative Complaint (Apr 20, 2026)
- 📄 Commissioner of Political Practices Letter to Bartel re Carlson Complaint (Apr 29, 2026)
- 📄 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Jul 17, 2026)
- 📄 Knudsen and Downs Answer to Complaint (Jul 29, 2026)
- 📄 Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Sep 16, 2026)
Timeline
Complaint Filed
Complaint filed
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiffs file a motion for a preliminary injunction asking for a decision by September 25, 2026
Order Setting Hearing for Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Court sets hearing for August 21, 2026 at 9:30 am
Hearing held
Hearing on motion for preliminary injunction held
Grant of Preliminary Injunction
Court holds that the plaintiffs have standing and that the statement from the Commissioner of Political Practices that he would be dismissing the candidates' complaints did not moot the case. On likelihood of success on the merits, the court held that the law is a content- and viewpoint-based restriction on speech. The law did not survive strict scrutiny because, while the interest in protecting elections is a compelling interest, the law was not narrowly tailered to serve the interest. Irreparable harm, the balance of the hardships and the public interest all tip in the plaintiff's favor once there is a serious First Amendment question. However, citing Trump v. CASA, Inc., the scope of relief was limited to the plaintiffs, not a total bar on enforcement.