Montana v. Jackson

Background

This dispute involves the State of Montana and a man charged with driving under the influence. The Montana Supreme Court held that the defendant’s refusal to take a breathalyzer test is testimonial and cannot be used against him, citing both the U.S. Constitution and Montana’s constitution. The State asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review that ruling.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Montana court’s decision rested on independent state-law grounds or on federal constitutional grounds. If the ruling rests on state law alone, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn it. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review, vacated the Montana judgment, and sent the case back for the Montana Supreme Court to clarify whether its decision is based on the state constitution. If the Montana court did rely on federal grounds instead, it must reconsider its ruling in light of this Court’s recent decision in South Dakota v. Neville.

Real world impact

The immediate effect is that Montana courts must clarify why they barred evidence of the refusal. Prosecutors and defense lawyers in Montana will face uncertainty about whether refusal-to-test evidence may be used until the state court answers that question. This ruling is procedural, not a final judgment on whether refusal evidence is admissible under federal law, and the outcome could change after further state-court consideration.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens dissented from the Court’s action, arguing the Montana opinion plainly rested on an independent state constitutional ground and that the U.S. Supreme Court therefore lacked power to vacate the decision.