Case v. Montana: Difference between revisions

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
No edit summary
 
Line 6: Line 6:
|Term = 2025
|Term = 2025
|Court = [[United States Supreme Court]]
|Court = [[United States Supreme Court]]
|Important dates = {{Greener| start=10/15/2025 10:00am CST| before=Argument:| after=Argued:}} October 15, 2025
|Important dates = {{Greener| start=10/15/2025 10:00am CST| before=Argument:| after=Argued:}} October 15, 2025<br>Decided:  January 14, 2026
|Outcome = {{Affirmed}}
|Outcome = {{Affirmed}}
|Vote = 9-0
|Vote = 9-0

Latest revision as of 11:07, 23 January 2026

Supreme Court of the United States
Case v. Montana
Term: 2025
Important Dates
Argued: October 15, 2025
Decided: January 14, 2026
Outcome
affirmed
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Sonia Sotomayor • Neil Gorsuch

Case v. Montana is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 14, 2026, during the court's October 2025-2026 term. The case was argued on October 15, 2025. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Montana Supreme Court. SCOTUS held that an officer may enter a home without a warrant if he has “an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.”[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerns whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant if they believe there is an emergency inside. The case before the Court asks whether the emergency-aid exception, which allows law enforcement to enter a home without a warrant, requires probable cause. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause."[2]
  • The outcome: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Montana Supreme Court. SCOTUS held that an officer may enter a home without a warrant if he has “an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.”[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the Montana Supreme Court. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Petitioner: William Trevor Case
      • Legal counsel: Fred Anthony Rowley Jr. (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati)
    • Respondent: Montana
      • Legal counsel: Christian Brian Corrigan (Montana Department of Justice), Peter Martin Torstensen Jr. (Montana Attorney General's Office)

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez, a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:[4]

    “ In September 2021, Trevor Case’s ex-girlfriend J.H. called police to report that Case had threatened suicide during their phone conversation. J.H. believed Case was intoxicated due to his erratic behavior, and she became alarmed when he mentioned getting “a note or something like that” before committing suicide. During the call, J.H. heard clicking sounds resembling a cocking pistol, prompting her to tell Case she would call police. Case responded by threatening to harm any officers who came to his home. The call ended when J.H. heard a “pop” that she believed was a gunshot, followed by dead air, though the line remained connected. Unable to get Case to respond, J.H. contacted police and drove to his residence.

    Law enforcement officers arrived at Case’s home and attempted to make contact by knocking on doors and calling through an open window, but received no response. Through the windows, officers observed empty beer cans, an empty handgun holster, and a notepad they believed contained a suicide note. The officers knew of Case’s history of alcohol abuse, mental health issues, and previous suicide threats, including an incident where he brought a weapon to the school where he taught. After approximately forty minutes on scene, officers made the decision to enter the home without a warrant to conduct a welfare check. They entered with weapons drawn due to J.H.’s report of Case's threats against officers. While clearing the home, Sergeant Pasha encountered Case in an upstairs bedroom closet. When Case suddenly opened the closet curtain, Pasha observed what he believed was a dark object at Case’s waist and shot him in the abdomen. A handgun was subsequently found in a laundry hamper next to where Case fell.

    Case was charged with Assault on a Peace Officer and filed pretrial motions to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry. The district court denied the motion to suppress. Following a jury trial in December 2022, Case was convicted of the felony charge. Case appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, which affirmed.[5]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • January 14, 2026: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Montana Supreme Court.
    • October 15, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • June 2, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • December 4, 2024: William Trevor Case appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • August 6, 2024: The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court of the Third Judicial District, holding that the District Court properly denied Case’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after officers responding to his threat of suicide entered his home without a warrant.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.[5] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Montana Supreme Court. SCOTUS held that an officer may enter a home without a warrant if he has “an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.” Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote:[1]

    “

    We repeat today what we have held before: An officer may enter a home without a warrant if he has “an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.” Brigham City, 547 U. S., at 400. The officers’ entry satisfied that test. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment (even though not all the reasoning) of the Montana Supreme Court.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Elena Kagan

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Sotomayor

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “

    I join the Court’s opinion, which holds that police officers may enter a home without a warrant if they have an ‘objectively reasonable basis for believing’ that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such harm. Ante, at 5, 7, 10. Although the Montana Supreme Court’s opinion appeared, erroneously, to apply a lower standard akin to reasonable suspicion, I agree that the officers here had an ‘objectively reasonable basis for believing’ that Case needed emergency assistance because he may have already shot himself or was imminently going to do so. Ante, at 7–10.

    I write separately to underscore the unique considerations that law enforcement and courts should bear in mind when assessing whether there is an ‘objectively reasonable basis to believe’ that a person experiencing a mental-health crisis needs law enforcement to ‘render emergency assistance.’ Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 403 (2006). As Brigham City explained, the ‘justification for what would be otherwise’ an illegal warrantless entry of a home in this context is ‘[t]he need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury.’ Ibid. (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 392 (1978)). The officers in Brigham City, for instance, needed to enter the house to break up an ongoing fight to protect a person whom they saw through a window being struck in the face and to prevent further violence. 547 U. S., at 406. When an officer is called to respond to a person at risk of suicide, however, entering the house may not always be the objectively reasonable course of action to ‘preserve life or avoid serious injury.’ Id., at 403 (quoting Mincey, 437 U. S., at 392). [5]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Justice Gorsuch

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “

    Today’s case, like another before it, holds that police officers generally do not violate a person’s Fourth Amendment rights when they enter his house without a warrant, but with an ‘objectively reasonable basis’ for believing someone inside is in physical danger and in need of immediate aid. Ante, at 7 (quoting Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 400 (2006)). Importantly, the Court observes, this exception to the warrant requirement permits entry only to the extent reasonably necessary to address the apparent emergency and does not authorize officers to search a home more broadly. See ante, at 9. With all that, I agree.

    But to me, a question lingers: Why? Does the Fourth Amendment tolerate this limited emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement just because five or more Justices of this Court happen to believe that such entries are ‘reasonable’? Or is this exception more directly ‘tied to the law’? Carpenter v. United States, 585 U. S. 296, 397 (2018) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting). The answer, I believe, is the latter. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2025-2026

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[8]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Supreme Court of the United States, "Case v. Montana," January 19, 2026
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "24-624 CASE V. MONTANA QP", June 2, 2025
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 24-624 Case v. Montana" accessed September 23, 2025
    4. ↑ Oyez, "Case v. Montana", accessed September 23, 2025
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 15, 2025
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 15, 2025
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Case_v._Montana&oldid=11034310"