WHERE THINGS STAND NATIONWIDE
The Expected Roadmap
Rewriting corporate powers is something that needs to be done state by state. If there was no opposition from corporate interests, that could be it. But we don’t live in that world, so: to be successful it needs to survive opposition from the courts at the federal level.
As a result, the expected roadmap has always been this:
- The corresponding policy passes in one or several states.
- Opposition will be filed in one of the “US District Courts” of that State, the lowest level of Federal Court. “US District Court” is the official name for such a court; other names used are: "District court", "federal district court", "U.S. trial court", "trial court", "court of first instance", "lower court".
- Whatever decision(s) the District Court(s) render(s), it will be appealed in the corresponding “U.S. Court of Appeals”. “U.S. Court of Appeals” is the official name for such a court; other names used are: "Court of Appeals", "Circuit Court of Appeals", "circuit court", "the circuit", "[Nth] Circuit", "appeals court", "appellate court", "regional appeals court".
- Whatever decision(s) the US Court(s) of Appeals render(s), it will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court will probably accept to hear it if it has survived the previous challenges.
Dive Deeper
Here are a few scenarios:
The policy passes in a State, different organizations bring up lawsuits, in different US District Courts within that same State.
The system is built to stop several suits over the same law from pulling in different directions. Similar cases can be merged before a single judge, and if two cover the same issue, usually the first one filed is allowed to go forward, while the other is paused, dismissed, or transferred to join it. That's why challengers tend to join forces rather than file rival lawsuits. If despite all this, lawsuits actually run in parallel, different district judges in the same state can reach different conclusions. If so, temporarily you could see the law blocked by one judge and upheld by another within the same state. However, that inconsistency would then get resolved in the US Appeals Court.
The policy passes in several states, and the legal battle leads to it being struck down in the State A's US District Court but upheld in State's B.
The two cases would move up to the appeals courts separately, and which US Court of Appeals hears each case depends on the States' locations:
- if both States are in the same “circuit”, they have the same US Court of Appeals, and that is the Court that will hear these two cases and decide whether the policy gets upheld or struck down in the States it covers.
- if the two States are in different “circuits”, the two cases go to two different Courts of Appeals, and those courts can disagree. If they do disagree, that situation is called a “circuit split”, and that pushes the question up to the final level: the U.S. Supreme Court. Settling disagreements between the appeals courts is the main reason the Court agrees to hear a case, since federal constitutional law isn't supposed to mean different things in different places. The Supreme Court then gives one nationwide answer that applies to every State in the US.
So far, as of mid-November 2026:
Step 1 has taken place in two states state: Hawai'i and Montana.
In Hawai'i the policy took the form of a Bill, called “SB 2471”, which the legislature passed and Gov. Josh Green signed it into law as Act 11 in May of this year, 2026. It is set to take effect on July 1 next year, 2027.
In Montana the policy took the form of a ballot measure, Initiative 194 ("I-194"). Voters approved it with about 65% of the vote, and it will take effect on January 1, 2027, as "The Montana Plan Act."
Step 2 has begun.
Lawsuits have been filed in the relevant U.S. District Courts in both states.
In Hawai'i, two lawsuits have been filed. Both are in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai'i (the federal trial court for the state), both are before the same judge, and neither has a ruling yet.
The first, Grassroot Institute of Hawai'i v. Lopez, et al., was filed on June 5 2026.
Find Our More About this Lawsuit
Current status:
- On June 19, 2026, the Grassroot Institute asked for a preliminary injunction, which is a court order that would stop the law from being enforced while the case goes on.
- On August 20, 2026, the state asked the court to dismiss the case. Mainly, the state argued that the Grassroot Institute does not have standing, meaning the legal right to sue, because the law has not yet affected it. The state argued that Hawai'i has the authority to decide what powers the corporations it creates may have. Owen Yeates, the Institute for Free Speech lawyer, argued that the state's reasoning could be used against any organization formed to do advocacy.
- Senior U.S. District Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi heard arguments on both requests on October 13, 2026. At that hearing she said she was inclined to find that the Grassroot Institute has standing, and she indicated she would find that the law restricts political speech. She did not rule on either request and did not say when she would.
The plaintiff is the Grassroot Institute, a think tank, and the legal-advocacy group representing it is the Institute for Free Speech.
The lawsuit is filed against state officials who are being sued in their official capacities, i.e. as holders of office, not as private individuals: Hawai'i's Attorney General (Anne Lopez) and the director of the state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (Nadine Ando).
Note that suing officials in their official capacity is typical for a constitutional challenge to a state law. This is because the Eleventh Amendment generally blocks suing a state itself (or a state agency) in federal court. So instead, the individual state officials in charge of enforcing the law are sued in their official capacity (by contrast, suing someone in their individual capacity would be about seeking money damages from the individuals, which is not the case in this kind of case).
The arguments: The organization suing argues that Act 11, the new law, violates the First Amendment's protections of free speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, and freedom of petition and assembly, and that key provisions are unconstitutionally vague. They say that Act 11 makes an exemption for news organizations — newspapers, broadcasters, periodicals — while restricting everyone else, and that the government cannot selectively decide which speakers enjoy First Amendment rights.
Relevant Official Documents
Court Docket (the case's docket number is: 1:26-cv-00279): view here
A court docket is a court's official record of everything that happens in a case, chronologically. It gives the timeline of everything that happens in the case, created as things happen. Think Captain's log.
Complaint: view here
The complaint is the document that starts a lawsuit — the first document filed where the side suing explains why they are suing. It names the parties, lists the legal claims, and ends with stating what "relief" they request, i.e. what they want the court to do — here, rule that Act 11 is unconstitutional and order it blocked.
The second lawsuit, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Lopez, et al, was filed on September 24, 2026.
Find Out More About this Lawsuit
Current status:
- On September 24, 2026, the Chamber filed the lawsuit and, on the same day, asked for a preliminary injunction, which is a court order that would stop the law from being enforced while the case goes on.
- On October 5, 2026, the case was reassigned to Senior U.S. District Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi, who is also the judge in the Grassroot Institute's lawsuit.
- On October 22, 2026, the state filed its written opposition to the request for a preliminary injunction.
- A hearing on the preliminary injunction is set for November 19, 2026, followed by a scheduling conference on November 23, 2026.
The plaintiff is the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (usually called the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), a national business lobbying organization based in Washington, D.C. It is represented by:
- Wiley Rein, a Washington, D.C. law firm;
- the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, the Chamber's own legal department;
- and Cades Schutte, a Honolulu law firm acting as local counsel.
As in the first lawsuit, the Chamber is suing the same two state officials in their official capacities: Hawai'i's Attorney General (Anne Lopez) and the director of the state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (Nadine Ando). Under Act 11, these two officials are the ones who can impose penalties and bring enforcement actions. Suing officials in their official capacity is typical for a constitutional challenge to a state law.
What the Chamber asks the court to do: Declare Act 11 unconstitutional and invalid, block its enforcement with a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction, and order the state to pay the Chamber's lawyer fees and costs.
Why the Chamber says the law affects it: The Chamber says it plans to send communications in Hawai'i during the 2027–2028 election cycle that name candidates for Hawai'i state office and approve or disapprove of their positions, including their positions on Act 11. It says it will not do so unless the court blocks the law, because of the penalties Act 11 allows, which include suspension of operations, loss of tax-exempt status, loss of permission to operate in Hawai'i, and forced dissolution.
The arguments: The Chamber makes three legal claims, all based on the First Amendment (which applies to states through the Fourteenth Amendment):
- Restriction on free speech: Act 11 bans political speech based on its subject and on who the speaker is. The Chamber says the exemption for news organizations shows that the state favors some corporate speakers over others. It points out that in Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court treated a similar exemption for media corporations as an additional reason to strike down the law in that case.
- Unconstitutional conditions: The state cannot require organizations to give up First Amendment rights in exchange for benefits such as limited liability, permanent legal existence, or permission to do business in Hawai'i.
- Overbreadth: Act 11 prohibits much more protected speech than any legitimate purpose of the law could justify.
The Chamber also argues that Act 11 contradicts its own reasoning. Hawai'i says it can define the powers of corporations because the state creates them, but Act 11 also applies to organizations formed in other states, which Hawai'i did not create. The Chamber itself is incorporated in the District of Columbia.
Relevant Official Documents
Court Docket (the case's docket number is: 1:26-cv-00497): view here
A court docket is a court's official record of everything that happens in a case, listed in the order it happens.
Complaint: view here
The complaint is the document that starts a lawsuit. It names the parties, lists the legal claims, and ends by stating what the side suing wants the court to do — here, declare Act 11 unconstitutional and block it.
In Montana , the case is Frontier Institute, et al. v. Knudsen, et al. It was filed on November 3, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.
Find Out More About this Lawsuit
Current status:
- The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on November 3, 2026, Election Day, about 18 minutes before the Associated Press called the vote on I-194.
- The plaintiffs have asked for a preliminary injunction, which is a court order that would stop the law from being enforced while the case goes on.
- As of November 9, 2026, no judge assignment, hearing date, or ruling has been reported.
- I-194 is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027, unless a court blocks it.
The plaintiffs are:
- the Frontier Institute, a Montana free-market policy think tank;
- the Frontier Action Fund, a new nonprofit connected to the Frontier Institute that plans to advocate on ballot measures and judicial races;
- the Montana Family Foundation, a conservative nonprofit that advocates on issues including religious liberty, school choice, parental rights, and abortion, and that runs a weekly radio program;
- the Montana Republican State Central Committee, the governing body of the Montana Republican Party.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Institute for Free Speech, a national nonprofit that works to reduce legal limits on political spending. It is the same group representing the Grassroot Institute in the first Hawai'i lawsuit. Its lead lawyer on the case is Owen Yeates, and Albert Jones is local counsel in Montana.
The lawsuit is filed against Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen, the two state officials responsible for enforcing I-194. Suing officials in their official capacity is typical for a constitutional challenge to a state law.
What the plaintiffs ask the court to do: Declare I-194 unconstitutional and block its enforcement with a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction.
Why the plaintiffs say the law affects them: The plaintiffs say their usual work includes publishing legislative scorecards, analyzing the effects of laws, spending money independently in support of candidates, and advocating for or against ballot measures. They say that under I-194, this work could lead to penalties that would threaten the existence of their organizations. The Montana Republican State Central Committee says the law could ban its newsletter and would reduce the money it relies on to spend independently in support of its candidates.
The arguments: The plaintiffs argue that I-194 violates the First Amendment protections of free speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of petition, and freedom of the press. They also argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague, because its wording makes it unclear what organizations are allowed to do, and overbroad, because it restricts much more speech than any legitimate purpose could justify. Their main point is that under I-194, a person can spend money on their own to speak about candidates and ballot measures, but cannot combine their money with others to do so through most nonprofit or civic organizations. The 57-page complaint relies heavily on Citizens United, which it cites 11 times, and argues that describing the ban as a limit on corporate powers does not make it constitutional.
Relevant Official Documents
Court Docket (the case's docket number is: 6:26-cv-00073): view here
A court docket is a court's official record of everything that happens in a case, listed in the order it happens.
Complaint: view here
The complaint is the document that starts a lawsuit. It names the parties, lists the legal claims, and ends by stating what the side suing wants the court to do — here, declare I-194 unconstitutional and block it.
As for step 3, All three cases, both those in Hawai'i and the one in Montana, would go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Where the Policy Has Been Attempted
As of November 2026, 15 states have attempted to remove election spending from corporate powers.
As of November 2026, two states have passed the policy.:
- Hawai'i, where it was signed into law as Act 11 in May of this year, 2026.
- Montana, where it passed as a ballot initiative in the November 2026 elections.
Usually, for important policies like rewriting corporate powers, it takes several attempts for the policy to become law (i.e. it takes several successive bills introduced in different legislative cycles).
Yet in Hawai'i the bill, SB 2471, went all the way through in one go: it became law in less than 4 months, making Hawai'i the first state to enact such a law .
Hawai'i & Montana's Experiences - Details
If you want the details of what been happening in Hawai'i and Montana, below are some timelines and links to official documents.
Legislative Journey of Hawai'i's Bill SB 2471: Key Dates
- Jan 22 — Introduced in Hawai'i Senate by
Senator Karl Rhoads (District 13).
- Senator Jarrett Keohokalole (District 24) co-sponsored it.
- Jan 28 — Referred (i.e. assigned) to:
- Committee on Commerce & Consumer Protection (CPN) — Chair: Senator Jarrett Keohokalole.
- Committee on Judiciary (JDC) — Chair: Senator Karl Rhoads.
- Feb 10 — CPN committee recommends the measure be passed, with
amendments. Votes:
- 3 Aye(s): Senator(s) Keohokalole, Fukunaga, Awa;
- Aye(s) with reservations: none ;
- No(es): none;
- 2 Excused: Senator(s) Lamosao, McKelvey.
- Mar 5 — JDC committee recommends the measure be passed, with amendments. Votes:
- 5 Aye(s): Senator(s) Rhoads, Gabbard, Chang, San Buenaventura, Awa;
- Aye(s) with reservations: none;
- No(es): none;
- Excused: none.
- Mar 10 — Passed the Senate. Transmitted to the House.
- Mar 12 — Referred to:
- Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce (CPC) — Chair: Representative Scot Matayoshi.
- Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs (JHA) — Chair: Representative David Tarnas.
- Mar 24 — CPC committee recommends the measure be passed, with
amendments. Votes:
- 11 Aye(s): Representative(s) Matayoshi, Grandinetti, Chun, Ilagan, Ichiyama, Iwamoto, Kong, Lowen, Marten, Tam, Pierick;
- Aye(s) with reservations: none;
- No(es): none;
- Excused: none.
- April 8 — JHA committee recommends the measure be passed, with
amendments. Votes:
- 7 Aye(s): Representative(s) Tarnas, Poepoe, Belatti, Hashem, Kahaloa, Takayama;
- Aye(s) with reservations: Representative(s) Shimizu;
- 1 No(es): Representative(s) Garcia;
- 2 Excused: Representative(s) Sayama, Cochran.
- Apr 14 — Passed the House. Transmitted back to the Senate.
- Apr 16 — Senate disagrees with House amendments. A conference committee is needed to reconcile.
- Apr 23 — May 1: Conference committee meets repeatedly. Reaches agreement on May 1st.
- May 6 — Both chambers adopt floor amendments.
- May 8 — Both chambers pass it.
- Thursday May 14 — Signed by Governor Josh Green.
The Montana Plan: Key Dates
In Montana, the ballot initiative in question was introduced by the “Transparent Election Initiative”. For more formation about this organization, you can visit their website.
With ups and downs, Montana's ballot initiative successfully completed steps 1 and 2: it was first introduced in August 2025, and had to be modified and reintroduced early 2026, in two different forms.
One of these (the statutory initiative) has now completed step 3, i.e. signature gathering:
The deadline to collect signatures was June 19th. The number needed is 30,121 verified signatures. In total, nearly 50,000 signatures have been collected, 34,906 have now been verified.
Given the comfortable number of signatures gathered, it is likely that enough of them will be deemed valid for the initiative to get certified (step 4), and therefore appear on the ballot next November.
The Montana Plan’s Journey to the Ballot
- August 1, 2025 – The Transparent Election Initiative (TEI) submits a first ballot initiative, to the secretary of state. It meant to amend the state’s constitution — i.e. a constitutional initiative (BI-4, i.e. Ballot Issue #4). It would have rewritten Article XIII of the Montana Constitution to revoke all powers the state grants to artificial persons, then regrant only the ones needed to do business, leaving out the power to spend in politics.
- October 24, 2025 – The Attorney General (Austin Knudsen) rejects it as not “legally sufficient”. His core objection is that it violates Montana’s “separate-vote” requirement, i.e. a single ballot question cannot bundle more than one substantive change. It also includes a “material harm to business” finding and a fiscal/litigation-cost statement.
- November 3, 2025 – TEI challenges the rejection in the Montana Supreme Court.
- January 6, 2026 – The Montana Supreme Court sides with the attorney general. (opinion 2026 MT 2; docket OP 25-0770)
- January 8, 2026 – TEI submits two new proposals:
- a new, simplified constitutional initiative (BI-9 / CI-135) , taking the supreme court’s arguments into account. A constitutional initiative is the preferred path because it would be much harder for a future legislature to undo than a statutory initiative.
- a statutory initiative (BI-10 / I-194) – i.e. a regular state law rather than a constitutional change. The statutory route is added partly as insurance, because it has a lower signature threshold and there is time pressure if the policy is to make the November ballot.
- March 6, 2026 — The statutory initiative clears review by the attorney general.
- March 10, 2026 — BI-10 / I-194 is approved to gather signatures. The deadline to collect the signatures is June 19th.
- March 18–19, 2026 — A coalition of nine business and industry groups (led by the Montana Chamber of Commerce and Montana Mining Association) petitions the Montana Supreme Court to strike BI-10 / I-194, arguing it is “facially unconstitutional” (i.e. unconstitutional as written): that it restricts protected political speech, is unconstitutionally vague, and unconstitutionally conditions the privilege of doing business on giving up First Amendment rights.
- April 1, 2026 — The Montana Supreme Court dismisses the challenge as premature without ruling on the merits (opinion 2026 MT 67; docket OP 26-0176). The constitutional questions remain open and could be raised again if I-194 passes.
- March 2026 — The attorney general (Austin Knudsen) rejects BI-9 / CI-135 the new, simplified constitutional initiative, finding it legally insufficient on separate-vote grounds similar to his prior objection to BI-4.
- Late March 2026 — TEI challenges the rejection in the Montana Supreme Court.
- April 24, 2026 — The Montana Supreme Court sides with TEI. (opinion 2026 MT 87; docket OP 26-0170)
- April 30, 2026 — Secretary of State then approved BI-9 / CI-135 for signature gathering. The deadline is the same for all ballot initiatives each cycle, so June 19th as for BI-10 / I-194.
- April - June 2026 — dispute over the wording of the official ballot statement for BI-9 / CI-135, between the attorney general and TEI. The disagreement was resolved by the Montana Supreme Court on June 9th (opinion 2026 MT 126; docket OP 26-0301), which in practice left too little time to gather the required number of signatures by the June 19th deadline. So, the constitutional version — which would be much harder for a future legislature to undo — will have to be refiled to be on a future ballot.
- June 19, 2026 – TEI submits nearly 50,000 signatures for BI-10 / I-194 to Montana’s county election administrators.
- August 17, 2026 – The Montana Secretary of State certifies BI-10 / I-194 for the November 3, 2026 general election ballot.
- November 3, 2026 – Montana voters approve I-194, with about 65% voting yes. The Associated Press calls the result late that night.
- November 3, 2026, 11:15 p.m. – About 18 minutes before the Associated Press calls the result, the Frontier Institute, Frontier Action Fund, Montana Family Foundation, Montana Family Institute, and Montana Republican State Central Committee file a federal lawsuit, Frontier Institute, et al. v. Knudsen, et al. (case 6:26-cv-00073), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, asking the court to block the Montana Plan Act (I-194).
- January 1, 2027 – The Montana Plan Act is scheduled to take effect, unless a court blocks it.
Montana Plan: Links to Official Documents
Proposed 2026 Ballot Issues (Montana Secretary of State): view here
This is the state's central register of ballot issues; it is the master record that lists every version of the measure — BI-4, BI-9/CI-135, and BI-10/I-194 — each with its official subject statement, submission date, current status, and a link to its full official text.
Official text — I-194 (Ballot Issue #10): view here
The statutory initiative (i.e. proposing a new state law rather than a constitutional change). This is the version that had gathered enough signatures to be in the certification step - and which will ultimately be approved on November 3, 2026. (This link may expire; if it has stopped working, use the central register's instead and search for the I-194 entry).
Official text — CI-135 (Ballot Issue #9): view here
The simplified constitutional initiative, refiled to satisfy the Supreme Court's single-subject ruling against BI-4 (again, if this link has stopped working, use the central register's instead and search for I-194 entry) and search for the CI-135 entry. It did not appear on the November 2026 ballot
Supreme Court opinion — 2026 MT 2 (docket OP 25-0770, Jan 6, 2026): view here
The ruling that struck down the original Ballot Issue #4. The court held that BI-4 violated the Montana Constitution's separate-vote requirement — it bundled more than one substantive change into a single question — and affirmed the attorney general's finding that the measure was legally insufficient.
Supreme Court opinion — 2026 MT 67 (docket OP 26-0176, April 1, 2026): view here
The ruling that dismissed the business coalition's constitutionality challenge to the statutory BI-10 / I-194. The court declined to rule on the merits, holding that pre-ballot constitutional challenges are strongly discouraged and that, because I-194 had not yet qualified for the ballot, deciding its constitutionality would be premature. The constitutional questions remained open; after I-194 passed, they were raised again in federal court.
Supreme Court opinion — 2026 MT 87 (docket OP 26-0170, April 24, 2026): view here
The ruling that cleared the constitutional Ballot Issue #9. The court reversed the attorney general and held that BI-9 did not violate the separate-vote requirement, reasoning that adding new constitutional matter doesn't count as two changes simply because that matter has operative content.
Supreme Court opinion — 2026 MT 126 (docket OP 26-0301, June 9, 2026): view here
The ruling that resolved the dispute over the wording of the official ballot statement for the constitutional ballot initiative BI-9 / CI-135. The court largely sided with the attorney general — upholding his authority to rewrite the statement and rejecting most of TEI's objections — and certified a court-revised statement to the Secretary of State.
Federal court docket — Frontier Institute, et al. v. Knudsen, et al. (case 6:26-cv-00073, U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, filed November 3, 2026): view here
The court's official record of everything that happens in the lawsuit challenging the Montana Plan Act (I-194), listed in the order it happens.
Complaint — Frontier Institute, et al. v. Knudsen, et al.: view here
The document that started the lawsuit. It names the parties, lists the legal claims, and asks the court to declare the Montana Plan Act unconstitutional and block it.