109812 research outputs found
Sort by
Master of Social Work Portfolio: Just Practice and Beyond
No full textThis portfolio captures my professional development through the University of Montana\u27s Master of Social Work program. Deeply informed by professional and practicum experiences in agencies focused on justice system diversion, restorative justice, positive youth development, and community mental health, this paper integrates social justice and clinical concerns while staying rooted client- and community-focused care.https://scholarworks.umt.edu/grad_portfolios/1509/thumbnail.jp
MSW Professional Portfolio
No full texthttps://scholarworks.umt.edu/grad_portfolios/1512/thumbnail.jp
Lura Forcum gives independent voters a voice
No full textThis week’s guest is Lura Forcum, president of the Independent Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to giving politically independent Americans a stronger voice in elections. Lura and her colleagues conduct research and outreach to better understand the many Americans who don’t align with either major political party.
In this episode, Lura talks about the disfunction of the two party system and the way polling is conducted. She advocates for empowering independent voters, and explains how the Independent Center provides resources and community to those voters.
Learn more about the Independent Center here.https://scholarworks.umt.edu/anewangle_podcasts/1409/thumbnail.jp
Montana Kaimin, May 1, 2025
No full textStudent newspaper of the University of Montana, Missoula.https://scholarworks.umt.edu/studentnewspaper/11175/thumbnail.jp
The Inevitability of Adaptability - Comparative Contributions to Understanding Originalism
No full textWhat can comparative law teach us about originalism as a constitutional interpretation method? After synthesizing existing comparative analyses, this article seeks to redefine comparative law’s role in understanding originalism. When defining originalism strictly to require adherence to fixed original meaning, originalism is not used by courts anywhere in the world. Instead, courts use history purposively to understand the intent behind constitutional text as one of many methods of interpretation. Comparative works suggest historical constitutional interpretation has a complex relationship with rights, politics and culture.
Comparative law can provide not only descriptive understandings of originalism but also interrogate its mandate that present-day judges adhere to fixed historical definitions of constitutional provisions. This article challenges originalism’s normative mandates by proposing principles about the movement of law between and within legal systems gleaned from comparative law. Two proposed principles are: (1) the “interpretive valve principle” that legal systems need mechanisms to adapt to societal changes, and that legal systems will generally work around artificial barriers to interpretive valves; and (2) the “legal transplant principle” that legal transplants always change from their origin system to the receiving system. Islamic law’s development throughout the Islamic diaspora, Europe’s reception of Roman law, and post-colonial common law systems’ integration of English law highlight these fundamental tenets.
This article applies these principles to equitable originalism, a strict originalist philosophy fixing the meaning of “equity” in Article III to English chancery courts’ equitable powers in the 1780s, and limiting federal judges’ equitable powers to that fixed meaning. Equitable originalism is an artificial barrier to equity, which is an interpretive valve in the U.S. legal system. This dispositive freezing of equity is seen in no other former British colony, and stymies the development of equity’s inherent corrective function. Equitable originalism will likely face limited success as a sustainable constitutional interpretation method because it is anomalous to the way law moves and develops
Preliminary Injunctions and the Montana 2025 Legislative Session\u27s (Mostly Unsuccessful) Attempt to Reshape the Judiciary
No full textThis short essay surveys 39 bills introduced during the 2025 Montana legislative session that targeted the judiciary. While most failed, nine became law. The essay organizes these bills into five categories: (1) changing judicial elections, (2) increasing the legislature’s oversight and authority over the courts, (3) changing the standards applicable to sitting judges, (4) creating non-Article VII courts and stripping Article VII courts of jurisdiction, and (5) changing the standards and processes in civil cases. The hope is that this short piece serves as a springboard for further research and dialogue on the origins and implications of this unprecedented legislative session. Particular attention is given to House Bill 409, which prohibits Montana courts from using variations of the preliminary injunction test set forth in Mont. Code Ann. § 27-19-201. Despite this new prohibition, Montana courts can still consider federal precedent when deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction
Documents from the April 30, 2025 Meeting of the Associated Students of the University of Montana (ASUM)
No full textMinutes and agenda from the April 30, 2025 Meeting of the Associated Students of the University of Montana (ASUM)
Documents from the July 9, 2025 meeting of the University of Montana Staff Senate
No full textAgenda and meeting minutes from the July 9, 2025 meeting of the University of Montana Staff Senate