Laurel CARED v. State of Montana. Where the case stands, and available court filings you can read.
Updated Oct 29, 2026
On October 20, 2026, the court dissolved the August 26 preliminary injunction. The agencies are no longer barred by that injunction from taking actions toward construction. This order does not decide Laurel CARED's second injunction motion; the court says it will address that motion separately. The case continues.
For the full sequence, including state and city actions, see the updated timeline.
When a court decides whether to pause a project while the case goes forward, it makes early, limited findings. These are called preliminary findings. They are not a final decision on who is right.
In the August 26 order, the court found that Laurel CARED was more likely than not to succeed on its claims about the State's water demand and pressure explanation, and about whether annexation is required for water service. On two other claims, emergency services and alternative sites, the court did not find at that stage that Laurel CARED was likely to succeed.
That does not mean those claims were decided against us. The court reviewed limited supporting documents on those claims, only to decide whether an injunction was needed. Arguments for summary judgment have not been made, and the court could still rule in Laurel CARED's favor on any claim.
This page is a plain-language summary, not legal advice. The filings below are the authoritative record.
Montana 13th Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, Cause No. DV-56-2026-0000855-DK, Hon. Ed Zink. Newest first. Each file opens as a PDF and can be downloaded.
Grants the City of Laurel permission to file a friend-of-the-court brief. The court finds that the City's information about municipal utilities, annexation, and related issues will assist its review of the revised Environmental Assessment and the record. Laurel CARED consents; the State opposes.
Responds to the State's opposition, arguing that the revised Environmental Assessment still lacks adequate support for water demand, municipal capacity, water pressure, and options for obtaining utility service. Asks for a temporary restriction on construction and on-site activities while the court reviews the case.
Dissolves the August 26 preliminary injunction, finding that the agencies sufficiently complied with that order. The agencies are no longer barred by that injunction from pursuing construction. This order does not decide Laurel CARED's second injunction motion, which the court says it will address separately.
Responds to the amended complaint, raises defenses, and asks the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
Responds to the amended complaint, raises defenses, and asks the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
Asks permission to address municipal utilities, infrastructure, authority, and the environmental record as a friend of the court. Laurel CARED consents; the State agencies oppose. The City expressly takes no position on the injunction arguments.
Asks to appear so the City can submit its request for permission to file an amicus brief.
Defends the revised Environmental Assessment and disputes Laurel CARED's grounds for a second injunction. Asks the court to deny the motion.
Adds the October 9 legislative Long-Range Planning Interim Budget Committee letter to the court record. The committee urges Laurel to repeal Ordinance O26-03 and provide water service, and alleges disability discrimination. These are the committee's positions, not court findings.
Notifies the court that the State's motion to dissolve the injunction is fully briefed and requests prompt consideration. This notice is not a ruling.
Argues that the State complied with the August 26 order and asks for prompt dissolution. Includes Dan Villa's declaration about construction scheduling and estimated delay costs.
Challenges the State's revised Environmental Assessment under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and asks the court for relief that includes an environmental impact statement.
Explains why Laurel CARED says the revised Environmental Assessment does not resolve the water supply issues.
Asks the court to enjoin acts in furtherance of construction while it reviews the revised Environmental Assessment.
Asks the court to keep the current injunction in place until it rules on the second motion. Does not oppose the State's motion to dissolve it as it relates to the prior Environmental Assessment.
The State asks the court to dissolve the August 26 injunction, saying it has complied with the order.
Filed with the motion. Exhibit A is the redline of the revised Environmental Assessment.
Enjoins construction acts, remands the Environmental Assessment on water supply issues, and requires a revised assessment and a new public participation opportunity.
Sets the preliminary injunction hearing for August 10, 2026.
The first motion for preliminary relief, filed with the original complaint.
Transcript of the August 10, 2026 preliminary injunction hearing
Coming soon.
These are published by the State and are very large files, so we link to them rather than copy them.
Official notices, environmental assessments and project documents.
The State's revised and final assessment, including Appendix K (response to public comment).