# Butte Community Union v. Lewis

> Montana Supreme Court · January 16, 1986 · 219 Mont. 426

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9508287

## Case

- **Full name:** BUTTE COMMUNITY UNION, Et Al., Plaintiffs and Respondent, v. DAVE LEWIS, as Director of the Montana State Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** Montana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 16, 1986
- **Citations:** 219 Mont. 426; 712 P.2d 1309; 1986 Mont. LEXIS 791
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gulbrandson
- **Judges:** Gulbrandson, Harrison, Hunt, Morrison, Sheehy, Turnage, Weber
- **Cited by:** 57 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Superseded on other grounds by Zempel v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 282 Mont. 424 (1997).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9508287

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting limited application of general standard of intermediate scrutiny—subject legislative discrimination must be “substantially related to an important government interest”—applicable to Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims not subject to strict scrutiny and variants…
- holding that Montana's constitution does not create a right to welfare

## Opinion text

MR. JUSTICE GULBRANDSON,
specially concurring:
I concur in the result and in the decision that the right to welfare is not a fundamental right but I do not concur in the adoption of a middle-tier standard of review in this case.
In my view, the legislation under attack does not meet the existing rational basis test and should therefore be declared unconstitu *436 tional. Thus, I do not perceive a need to adopt an additional test requiring a higher standard of review for legislation that may be enacted in the future. It appears that the newly adopted test, described as a middle-tier standard of review, actually replaces the rational basis test, even though no party to the action argued for its adoption.
In my opinion, the majority, by requiring the legislature to establish a factual record in its classification procedure, may have limited possible future legislative alternatives, because of time constraints existing in this matter, to the point where adequate welfare benefits may not be available to the needy.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9508287. Public record. Not legal advice.