Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen has asked the Montana Supreme Court to dismiss Gallatin County Attorney Audrey Cromwell’s petition seeking to terminate his supervisory control over her office, escalating a dispute over whether county officials must share confidential criminal justice information with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for civil immigration enforcement purposes.

In a summary response filed May 14, Knudsen argued that Cromwell v. Knudsen should not proceed as an original action before the state’s high court. His office said Cromwell is asking justices to resolve what it described as a political dispute rather than a legal question, and contended that any justiciable claims should be brought first in district court through the normal litigation and appeals process.

The filing came after the Montana Supreme Court ordered Knudsen to respond to Cromwell’s petition by the close of business May 14. Cromwell had asked the court to end the attorney general’s supervisory control over her office and to address whether Montana counties may disclose confidential criminal justice information, known as CCJI, to ICE when the request is tied to noncriminal, civil or administrative immigration enforcement.

Knudsen’s office says the legal answer is clear: ICE is a criminal justice agency under Montana law, and county officials may share confidential criminal justice information with the federal agency for lawful purposes, including civil immigration administration. The attorney general’s response argues that Cromwell’s distinction between ICE’s criminal and civil functions improperly adds limitations that the Montana Criminal Justice Information Act does not contain.

“Entertaining this petition would chart a path for any county attorney to run to this Court to resolve any interpretive or policy disagreement she had with the Attorney General,” Knudsen wrote in the response, according to the Montana Department of Justice. “A decision on the merits would nullify the Legislature’s grant of comprehensive supervisory authority.”

The dispute dates back to an October 2025 communication from Cromwell’s office to local law enforcement stating that the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office did not legally recognize ICE as a law enforcement agency entitled to receive confidential criminal justice information, according to accounts of the correspondence cited in state and local reporting. Cromwell has said her office had not adopted a formal or informal policy blocking cooperation with ICE and has framed the issue as one involving proper statutory process, privacy protections and the purpose of the federal request.

Knudsen’s office first demanded in early April that Cromwell rescind what it called an unlawful policy and clarify that Gallatin County may share confidential criminal justice information with ICE. The attorney general then invoked supervisory control over Cromwell’s office on April 30, directing her to share such information with ICE for lawful purposes and to produce related documents, records and communications.

Montana law gives the attorney general supervisory powers over county attorneys in matters connected to the duties of their offices. Knudsen’s office has cited that authority as allowing him to order and direct county attorneys, including in disputes over how criminal justice information should be handled. Cromwell’s petition asks the Supreme Court to determine whether that supervisory power can be used in this context and whether the attorney general’s interpretation of Montana law is correct.

The case has become a test of two competing readings of state law. Knudsen’s position is that once an entity meets the statutory definition of a criminal justice agency, it may receive confidential criminal justice information, and officials do not need to evaluate whether the agency is using the information for a criminal investigation or a civil immigration matter. Cromwell’s position, as described in prior filings and correspondence, is that the purpose of the request matters when the information is sought for civil administrative enforcement rather than criminal prosecution.

The privacy question is central to Cromwell’s petition. She has argued that county attorneys statewide could face conflicting obligations: disclosing confidential information in a way that may violate Montana’s constitutional right to privacy and related statutes, or refusing disclosure and risking intervention by the attorney general. Her petition said the dispute had created uncertainty beyond Gallatin County and that supervisory control was disrupting the county attorney’s office.

Knudsen’s response rejects that statewide-framing argument. His office characterized Cromwell as an outlier and said no other county has adopted her interpretation of the Criminal Justice Information Act. The attorney general also argued that Cromwell has not shown the kind of urgency or emergency that would justify bypassing district court and asking the Montana Supreme Court to take direct jurisdiction.

The filing also presses a separation-of-powers and institutional-control argument. Knudsen says allowing the petition to proceed would weaken the Legislature’s grant of supervisory authority to the attorney general by letting any county attorney bring a policy dispute directly to the Supreme Court. Cromwell’s side has countered that judicial review is appropriate because the attorney general’s assertion of supervisory control is itself part of the legal dispute.

Local news outlets have reported that Knudsen also ordered Cromwell to dismiss the case and terminate outside counsel after she filed her petition. Cromwell’s attorney, Raph Graybill, responded that the matter was already before the Montana Supreme Court and that Cromwell would continue to retain independent counsel while seeking a declaration of the law.

The dispute reflects a wider national debate over the role of local governments in federal immigration enforcement. ICE frequently interacts with local law enforcement agencies and county records systems, but state privacy laws, criminal justice information statutes and local policies can affect how much information is shared and under what circumstances. In Montana, the question is now tied not only to immigration enforcement but also to the scope of the attorney general’s authority over elected county prosecutors.

There was no final ruling from the Montana Supreme Court as of the latest filings cited by state and local reports. The immediate question before the justices is whether to dismiss Cromwell’s petition, take up the case, or direct the parties toward a lower-court process. If the court declines direct review, the legal disagreement could continue in district court or through additional requests for formal legal interpretation.

For Gallatin County, the practical stakes involve whether county officials must treat ICE requests for confidential criminal justice information the same regardless of whether the agency is pursuing a criminal investigation or civil immigration enforcement. For Montana’s county attorneys more broadly, the case could clarify how far the attorney general may go in directing local prosecutors and whether county-level legal interpretations can be overridden through supervisory control before a court rules.

Knudsen’s latest filing leaves the state’s high court with a threshold question: whether the dispute belongs before the Supreme Court now. His office says it does not. Cromwell’s petition argues that the controversy is already affecting elected county authority, privacy obligations and public trust. The court’s next order will determine whether those issues receive immediate statewide review or move into the ordinary trial-court path.