Noise🔒 v1

Montana Supreme Court Dismisses Misconduct Case Against State Attorney General

2026-01-01 · 1 sources · 72% confidence

Judicial/Legal Actionsingle state · narrow

🏛 State Judicial Branch👤 Montana Supreme Court👤 State Attorney General#judicial_decision #attorney_general #misconduct

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court dismissed a misconduct case against the state attorney general. The ruling ends the disciplinary proceeding against the official.

Why This Score

Dismissal of misconduct case against state AG has modest constitutional implications. Rule_of_law (2.5) reflects accountability mechanism functioning but dismissal means no finding of wrongdoing. Separation (1.5) involves judicial oversight of executive official. Capture (1.0) and corruption (1.5) scored low as dismissal suggests no proven misconduct. Severity multipliers reduced: durability 0.9 (case closed but precedent limited), reversibility 1.0 (final), precedent 0.95 (state-level only). Mechanism modifier 0.85 (judicial action protective but dismissal limits impact). Scope 0.7 (single state, narrow population). Final A=3.7 well below threshold. B-score modest at 4.4 from limited outrage potential and routine legal news cycle. Classification: Noise due to A<25, routine legal proceeding, and insufficient detail on underlying allegations or systemic implications.

A-Score Drivers

Election Integrity & Transfer of Power×0.22

0.0/5

Rule of Law / Due Process×0.18

2.5/5

Separation of Powers×0.16

1.5/5

Civil Rights / Equal Protection×0.14

0.0/5

Institutional Capture×0.14

1.0/5

Corruption / Self-Dealing×0.1

B-Score: Layer 1 — Hype (55%)

Outrage-bait

2.0/5

Meme-ability

0.5/5

Novelty Spike

1.0/5

Media Friendliness

2.0/5

Layer 2 — Strategic (45%)

Media-Volume Mismatch

1.0/5

Timing Overlap

Sources (1)

Montana Supreme Court dismisses misconduct case against the state attorney general— sitkasentinel.com

IF YOU ONLY DO ONE THING

Monitor for: (1) Details on underlying misconduct allegations that were dismissed; (2) Whether dismissal was procedural vs. substantive; (3) Pattern of similar dismissals protecting state officials; (4) Any subsequent federal investigation or civil litigation. Becomes relevant if part of broader accountability erosion pattern.