10/06/2026
OP 26-0629
Case Number: OP 26-0629
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2026 MT 237
JOHN DANIEL MILLER,
Petitioner,
v.
FERGUS COUNTY JUSTICE COURT
OF RECORD, HONORABLE KELLY
MANTOOTH, Justice of the Peace, Presiding,
Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Supervisory Control
In and For the County of Fergus,
Cause No. CR-365-2026-29
The Honorable Kelly Mantooth, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Petitioner:
John Miller, Self-Represented, Grass Range, Montana
For Respondent:
The Honorable Kelly Mantooth, Fergus County Justice Court,
Lewistown, Montana
Decided: October 6, 2026
Filed:
Clerk
Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion and Order of the Court.
¶1 Self-represented Petitioner John Miller has filed a Petition for Writ of Supervisory
Control, over the Fergus County Justice Court and the Honorable Kelly Mantooth. Miller
contends that Judge Mantooth has violated M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a) and 14(3)(b) because
Judge Mantooth has violated his First Amendment rights by arresting his friend who was
recording the pre-jury selection proceeding in Justice Court. Miller states he gave his
friend permission to do so, and his friend had recorded three other court hearings
previously. He adds that Judge Mantooth arrested his friend “1:47 one min and 47 seconds
into [his] case for [r]ecording” imposing a fine and jail time. Miller provides that he was
protecting his First Amendment right to free speech and contends that Judge Mantooth “has
a conflict of interest in this case” due to being a retired police officer after twenty-seven
years and now being a judge in the building where the allegation took place.
¶2 Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 14(3), this Court may exercise its supervisory control
power over all other courts and on a case-by-case basis. A petitioner must demonstrate a
case with purely legal questions and urgent or emergency factors, making the normal
appeal process inadequate. Additionally, the petitioner must show that the “other court is
proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice; [or] [c]onstitutional
issues of state-wide importance are involved[.]” M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a), 14(3)(b).
¶3 Miller’s writ raises a question of first impression. This Court has not had the
opportunity to address directly a court’s authority to impose “time, place, manner”
restrictions on the First Amendment right to free speech in a court room. A justice court
is defined in the Montana Constitution and in statutes. Each county shall have at least one
2
justice of the peace, and justices of the peace “may perform their duties in dignified
surroundings.” Mont. Const. Art. VII, § 5(1). Since 2005, a justice court has been included
in the list of courts of record, pursuant to § 3-1-102, MCA. 2005 Mont. Laws ch. 557, § 1.
See also Thompson v. State, 2007 MT 185, ¶ 18, n.2, 338 Mont. 511, 167 P.3d 867. We
conclude that a court, such as the Fergus County Justice Court, may limit a person’s First
Amendment right to free speech with time, place, and manner restrictions.
¶4 A constitutional right to observe court proceedings exist. “It is true that the Supreme
Court has recognized a limited right of access to certain governmental proceedings,
specifically those related to the judicial process.” Dahlstrom v. Sun-Times Media, LLC,
777 F.3d 937, 947 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court,
457 U.S. 596, 605-06, 102 S. Ct. 2613, 2620 (1982) (recognizing a constitutional—though
not absolute—right of public access to criminal trials).
¶5 However, there is no recognized constitutional entitlement to record court
proceedings. Forty-five years ago, the United States Supreme Court affirmed a state court
decision, “reject[ing] the argument of the Plaintiffs that the first and sixth amendments to
the United States Constitution mandate entry of electronic media into judicial
proceedings.” Chandler v. Fla., 449 U.S. 560, 569, 101 S. Ct. 802, 807 (1981) (citation
omitted) (emphasis added). The Florida court relied on the high court’s holding in
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 98 S. Ct. 1306 (1978), which in part
stated: “The requirement of a public trial is satisfied by the opportunity of members of the
public and the press to attend the trial and to report what they have observed.” Nixon, 435
U.S. at 610, 98 S. Ct. at 1318 (citations omitted).
3
¶6 Other courts have interpreted the high court’s conclusion that no First Amendment
right exists to have other electronic media in the courtroom.1 A state court pointed to this
conclusion, stating it “may not disregard the Supreme Court’s express conclusion
that there is no First Amendment right to record courtroom events.” McKay v. Federspeil,
22 F. Supp. 3d 731, 735 (E.D. Mich. 2014). The reason is due to the court’s inherent
authority to manage and to control the proceeding and impose time, place, and manner
limitations on people within its courtroom. See McKay, 22 F. Supp. 3d at 735-36.
¶7 In Montana, this Court has recognized limitations which may be imposed on the
First Amendment right to free speech. “First Amendment rights may be governed by
appropriate limitations on the time, place and manner of their exercise.” Dorn v. Board of
Trustees, 203 Mont. 136, 145, 661 P.2d 426, 431 (1983). This Court has recognized the
imposition of reasonable time and place restrictions on city council meetings because they
are not content-based restrictions. “Time, place, and manner restrictions that preserve a
city council’s legitimate interest in conducting efficient and orderly meetings are
permissible, so long as the restrictions are reasonable and viewpoint neutral.” Denke v.
Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418, ¶ 50, 347 Mont. 322, 198 P.3d 284 (2008). We explained that
the City of Thompson Falls could impose such restrictions to conduct its meetings. “[W]e
conclude[d] that imposition of reasonable and viewpoint-neutral time, place, and manner
1
A law review article provided much more detail about a court’s authority and outside recording of proceedings. See “Any Rebroadcast, Retransmission, or Account of this Trial Without the Express Written Consent of the Judge is Prohibited”: The First Amendment and Judicial Constraints on Redistributing Courtroom Video, 72 Buffalo L. Rev. 809 (2024).
4
restrictions at a city council meeting will not unduly hamper debate on public issues or
criticism of the conduct of public affairs.” Denke, ¶ 51.
¶8 The Justice Court is not restricting the content of Miller’s speech by disallowing
outside or external recording in the courtroom. A court by its inherent authority under the
Montana Constitution and statute may impose reasonable and content neutral restrictions
within the courtroom and its management of cases. As a court of record, the Justice Court
provides a record of the proceedings for the public to review or to acquire through purchase
of a transcript. We note that a court has the discretion to allow various other electronic
recordings but is not required to do so.
¶9 We further conclude that the Fergus County Justice Court has not violated Miller’s
constitutional rights in a public court proceeding and that Miller has not demonstrated any
criteria for this Court to exercise supervisory control over the Fergus County Justice Court.
As applied to Miller’s instant writ, the Fergus County Justice Court has the authority to
impose restrictions on Miller’s or his friend’s recording of the proceeding in the court.
Miller has not demonstrated any conflict of interest. Miller has a public hearing in a court
of record that records the proceeding for its use or subsequent review. Miller is incorrect
that the Justice Court violated his First Amendment right to free speech or any of the other
listed rights. The Justice Court may limit Miller from self-recording during his proceeding
within its courtroom. Even though Miller may not trust the presiding judge, Miller has no
constitutional right to record his proceeding or have someone else record the proceeding
for him.
5
IT IS ORDERED that Miller’s Petition for Writ of Supervisory Control is DENIED
and DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is CLOSED as of this Order’s date.
The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to: the
Honorable Kelly Mantooth, Justice of the Peace; Sarah Hodge, Justice Court Clerk, under
Cause No. CR-365-2026-29; counsel of record; and John Miller personally.
DATED this 6th day of October, 2026.
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
We Concur:
/S/ CORY J. SWANSON
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JIM RICE
6