Officials pointed to possible financial risks, choice removes state’s investigative capacity
By Jordan Hansen DAILY MONTANAN
On the advice of legal counsel and possibly in the face of steep financial losses, the Helena City Commission rescinded an immigration resolution on Thursday night in a special meeting at the city’s Civic Center.
The resolution reiterated the city’s support for immigrant communities and was essentially a public reminder of its policy and procedures surrounding interaction with federal law enforcement. The City Commission also made a second motion late Thursday night to address concerns from the attorney general and try another resolution.
The city adopted the resolution on January 26 with significant public support following several notable federal law enforcement actions in Montana, in particular the arrest of a mechanic in Froid and a case of “mistaken identity” of a man living in Helena. But Gov. Greg Gianforte and Attorney General Austin Knudsen announced an investigation into the measure and alleged it is illegal under state law.
The debate has morphed, in part, to a discussion of local control, with Helena citing a risk of severe financial penalties to the tune of $14 million and litigation following the state investigation.
More than 200 people showed up for the meeting, and many told commissioners the state was overreaching, that its job was to fight for Helena citizens and not to capitulate to pressure from the state many described as “political theater.” Some also said the potential financial losses were being exaggerated, or that the cost of litigation would be worth it.
The City Commission spent almost three hours listening to comments at the meeting, which started at 5:30 p.m. and adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
The commission voted 4-1 to rescind the resolution, with Commissioner Melinda Reed the lone vote against. Helena Mayor Emily Dean said she was torn, but the city did not have the ability to ask for an appropriation if they ran out of money, and she voted for pulling back the resolution.
“I will be honest, this has been infuriating,” Dean said. “I am more concerned than ever about the state overreach and telling Montana communities what they can and can’t think, the values they can and can’t have, and then limiting our ability to fund essential services, including police.”
In a press conference with Gianforte announcing the investigation and later in a letter and formal investigation, Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office accused the city of violating a 2021 state law, HB 200, banning sanctuary cities in Montana. The city has said it reviewed the legality of the resolution before passing it, and city officials said more than 1,000 staff hours have been spent on the resolution.
The AG’s office also threatened financial penalties against the city of Helena — $10,000 for every five days the city is in violation. Those fines alone could already be around $120,000 if the attorney general’s office found them out of compliance immediately, Commissioner Ben Rigby said.
HB 200 includes a lengthy description of certain funding mechanisms that could be impacted if a city is found in violation of the law, saying the Department of Commerce “may not recommend or prioritize projects submitted by local governments” found in violation of the sanctuary city law.
Attorney Natasha Jones spoke at length during an hour-long commission discussion prior to public comment on the financial situation Helena could find itself in if it failed to take back the measure.
Jones, who has a long history of defending cities and with law enforcement issues across the state, was hired by the city to review the law and give an opinion.
Jones, with Boone Karlberg of Missoula, said funding that could be threatened includes pass-through grants targeting water, transit funding, money from the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, and even gas tax funds. It also could impact the city’s place on priority lists for state projects, all of which formed the basis of her argument that the city should step back on the resolution.
Jones said the City of Helena does not have leverage against the state at this point, and suggested recession and an attempt to negotiate with the state. She added that recession would also remove the investigative capacity of the state.
“Right now, the AG and the governor are threatening us with very significant power that they hold. It’s very difficult to enter into a negotiation with someone when they are holding cards like that,” Jones said. “So what we need to do is level the playing field, lower the pressure, lower the temperature, see if we can engage in civil dialogue and reasonable discourse.”
HB 200 has not been challenged in Montana, but similar laws in other states — specifically Florida and Texas — with bans on sanctuary cities have been mostly upheld in those places.
Additionally, Jones pointed to President Donald Trump’s “unprecedented” weaponization of federal funding. She also said litigation could be expensive.
Helena City Finance Director Sheila Danielson painted a dreary picture of the financial impact if the city starts to lose funding associated with the sanctuary city bill. Staff went through the budget and, for fiscal year 2025, the funding that would have been impacted adds up to around $14 million.
“That particular distribution of money is higher than our operating reserve in the general fund,” Danielson said. “To lose that would put the city at risk of maintaining its operations.”
Multiple attorneys gave public comment during the meeting, with some saying the city should pursue a declaratory judgment to resolve the issue between the city and state before a lawsuit would be filed. Others said the city should keep the resolution and fight it out in court.
Numerous public commenters pointed to frustration with the attorney general’s office and governor, with one person calling the investigation “extortion” and others equating their actions against Helena to bullying.
“Please stand strong,” said Shani Henry, a Helena resident who also spoke on the issue during the January meeting discussing the resolution. “Please do not cower to the threats of a grandstanding AG who is clearly utilizing this opportunity to launch his gubernatorial campaign. I also want to point out that there is absolutely no way that this AG will work with you afterward. If you rescind this amendment, if you rescind this resolution, please do not kid yourself that he will. That is not in his moral fiber.”
The resolution came following Christopher Martinez’s arrest by Helena law enforcement after a request from federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to stop him, believing him to be someone else they were investigating. Martinez eventually returned to Mexico.
His wife, Maria Pacheco, spoke during the public comment period, saying her daughters were scared of police and “they have this idea that ICE officers are going to be coming in, and they’re terrified.”
Some comments remained in favor of the resolution, while others were supportive of the commission taking a break and trying to negotiate with the state.
Others, including one woman claiming she had more than 100 signatures from her church (which she did not name), were vehemently against it, often repeating debunked but persistent claims that immigrants are drivers of crime. Evidence, in fact, points to the opposite — immigrants, both undocumented or not, commit crimes at a lower rate than people born in the United States.
The attorney general’s letter to Helena laid out several issues with the resolution, which City Commissioner Reed sought to address through several amendments, including adding a Whereas clause saying, “the City of Helena is committed to the rule of law and complying with state and federal law.”
Section 3, which the attorney general’s letter specifically points to as a “blatant” violation, says “the [HPD] policy that it will not, independently or assisting other law enforcement agencies, stop, pursue, interrogate, investigate, arrest, or otherwise detain a person based solely on their immigration status or suspected violations of immigration law.”
Reed’s amendment would have added to that section, saying “except as pursuant to a lawfully made immigration detainer request.”
Her amendments would have also added a sixth section, saying “Nothing in the resolution shall prohibit the exchange of any information for a lawful purpose.”
The amendments were supported by the ACLU of Montana, said Henry Seaton, a representative of the organization who urged the commission to consider declaratory judgement. Those amendments may be folded into a new resolution.
“What is the price point for maintaining our rights, for maintaining local control?” Reed said. “I’m not sure I can put a number on that.”
