Cory Swanson
Non-Partisan | Montana
Candidate Profile
Originalist (Conditional)
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Cory Swanson
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2024
Election
General
Race
Supreme Court, Chief Justice
Incumbent
No
Links
EDUCATION
Carroll College, Helena, MT, BA Political Science, 2000
University of Montana School of Law, Missoula, MT, Juris Doctor, 2004
US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA, Master of Strategic Studies, 2021
WORK & MILITARY
Army National Guard, Colonel, 27
Broadwater County, County Attorney, 10
Montana Department of Justice, Deputy Attorney General, 2
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Broadwater County Attorney, 10
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Montana House of Representatives- Candidate, 2000
ENDORSEMENTS
CONSERVATIVE (1)
Judge Voter Guide
REPORTED BY CANDIDATE (1)
Hundreds of Montanans.
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (2)
Steve Daines (2013)
State Republican Party Organizations (2010)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (0)
OTHER INFORMATION
Johnston, Patrick. "Swanson seeks top seat in Montana Supreme Court."Havre Daily News, 20 Feb. 2024.
- "Swanson also said courts are supposed to make rulings on the narrowest possible grounds that would determine an outcome. Oftentimes, judges will attach further legal comment on a ruling if they feel it will be beneficial to future citation, but these comments are ultimately non-binding. He said he feels the Supreme Court has been providing these comments too often, not overruling previous precedent, but calling it into question in a way that creates uncertainty for the judicial system, especially in the case of State of Montana v. Noli."
- "Swanson said his primary concern as a candidate is to curb a trend of judicial activism he said he sees within the Montana Supreme Court[.]"
- "He said appellate courts, including the Montana Supreme Court are meant to give deference to district courts when it comes to findings of fact unless they are 'clearly erroneous' which is a high legal bar, one that he thinks hasn't been met in many cases when the court has reinterpreted said findings." "I think they are retrying the facts as if they were the trial court[.]" "And I think that creates a problem for district court judges, and undermines their work and undermines their authority."
- "Both sides fighting for an activist court that favors them is the wrong answer," he said. "We don't want a conservative court, we don't want a liberal court. We want the court that is going to be focused on the facts."
Cory Swanson said, “I think we need to ensure that, to the very best of their ability, the judges should set politics aside and rule strictly on the facts and the law of each case[.]" “I really think that's the answer to the conflict that we're seeing right now among the branches – not more aggressive political stances from the court, but actually trying to remove politics, if at all possible, from the conduct of the court and the rulings of the Supreme Court. That's not an easy thing to do; I totally understand that.”
"[Swanson] said he feels the Supreme Court has been providing ... comments too often, not overruling previous precedent, but calling it into question in a way that creates uncertainty for the judicial system, especially in the case of State of Montana v. Noli."
Cory Swanson, "Montana Deserves a Fair and Impartial Judiciary" Dailyinterlake.com (March 10, 2024).
- He wrote, "The Montana Supreme Court is not immune from this nation-wide sickness of judicial activism. I’m running for chief justice of the Montana Supreme Court because I want to return the court to its correct function as an interpretive, not law-making, body. I want to defuse the conflict within our state government by confining the court to its role of strictly and modestly determining what the law is, not what it should be. And I want to fight the politicization fire with the water of fair and impartial court rulings, no matter the issue and no matter the people involved in the lawsuit."
Cory Swanson, "Guest view: Thank You Senator Daines for the Water Rights Protection Act" Montana Standard (January 23, 2020).
Cory Swanson was a guest on The Pursuit Podcast with Jesse Slaughter (March 20, 2024)
Cory Swanson, "Cory Swanson: Let’s establish a standard against antisemitism in Montana courts" Missoulian.com (January 9,, 2024).
- He wrote, "I am running for Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court. If elected, I will implement a rigorous screening process to weed out applicants who have participated in calls for anti-Jewish violence, expressed support for terrorist groups, or engaged in antisemitic hate speech."
From MTFP. "Election 2024 Guide: Montana's Candidates for State and Federal Office." Montana Free Press.
- “I'm dedicated to preserving the independence of the judiciary, but also focusing on the needs of lawyers, courts, and especially clients to identify those areas where we need the system to function better," said Cory Swanson
- “My mindset has been entirely deferential to judges and to the courts,” said Swanson. “But my plan changed in the past year because the Supreme Court has been deciding too many cases in a way that departs from sound appellate judge practice. It undermines the reliability of the law, and I felt I could do better.”
- Swanson described his judicial philosophy as:
- "Justices must strive to uphold the rule of law by providing the very best legal interpretation possible to resolve the legal question in each case before us, and also to build a body of case law that others may rely upon. To do so, I would interpret every legal document as a textualist, according to the philosophy of judicial restraint. That means resolve the case before you, not the next five cases you can imagine. That means following precedent unless there is a compelling reason to depart from it, not modifying precedent as it suits you to reach preferred outcomes."
- "A good Supreme Court justice should work hard and learn every day. He or she should follow the law to the case's conclusion. He or she should respect the power of the office by not abusing it or disrespecting the litigants. Finally, a good justice should build a professional atmosphere of honest debate and collective learning, not anger or score-settling. A bad justice lets personality get in the way of duty."
- "The Supreme Court should uphold the rule of law by removing political concerns from its legal interpretations. Let the law be clear, and let the political chips fall where they may."
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Was Dobbs v. Jackson rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain.
The US Supreme Court held that the issue of abortion was not expressly addressed in the US Constitution and is therefore a matter reserved to the states. This is the law of the land, and we are now seeing the issue playing out in legislative and judicial processes in the various states. This includes Montana.
I support a right to accelerate ending a human life.
Choose not to answer
This may be an issue that comes before the Montana Supreme Court as a subject of litigation. It would be improper for me to forecast the result of a case or a legal opinion that I may have to decide later.
Human life deserves legal protection from conception until natural death.
Choose not to answer
This may be an issue that comes before the Montana Supreme Court as a subject of litigation. It would be improper for me to forecast the result of a case or a legal opinion that I may have to decide later.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States.
Choose not to answer
This may be an issue that comes before the Montana Supreme Court as a subject of litigation. It would be improper for me to forecast the result of a case or a legal opinion that I may have to decide later.
VALUES
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
I was raised in a traditional Christian home with loving parents. I am married with children and we try to raise our children in the same way. We believe in the Bible and adhere to the Christian faith. The challenge in any position of public trust is to ensure we discharge our duties based upon the law and Constitution, and also based upon who we are as a person. Any public servant, particularly a judge, must ensure his or her personal views do not distort the public duty.
What is your view of parental rights regarding the upbringing of children, specifically education and sexual "identity"?
I believe parents have a fundamental right and duty to care for and raise their children as they believe is right. There are a number of contentious issues currently in litigation or likely headed toward litigation that include rights of parents and minor children RE: education, sexual identity, and care and neglect. If any of these issues come before me as a Supreme Court justice, the most important issue for my legal opinion is the meaning of the law and Constitution, not my personal beliefs.
I support "gender identity" as a specially protected class. Please explain.
Choose not to answer
This may be an issue that comes before the Montana Supreme Court as a subject of litigation. It would be improper for me to forecast the result of a case or a legal opinion that I may have to decide later.
What do you believe to be true about the human condition?
Human beings are a mess. They always have been since the beginning, and they will be until the end. I put my trust in God’s grace and redemption.
EQUALITY
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT).
Choose not to answer
This may be an issue that comes before the Montana Supreme Court as a subject of litigation. It would be improper for me to forecast the result of a case or a legal opinion that I may have to decide later.
ABOUT YOU
What, if any, church or organizations do you belong to?
I have been involved in ministry leadership since campus ministry in college. My wife and I are on the leadership team of a non-denominational Christian church. I have taken a leave of absence from active leadership due to the demands of the campaign.
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
2014 Republican Primary 2014 General Election 2016 Republican Primary 2016 General Election 2018 Republican Primary 2018 General Election 2020 Republican Primary 2020 General Election 2022 General Election
I was deployed overseas with the US Army and failed to complete my ballot on time for the 2022 primary campaign. Keep in mind just because I have been a life long Republican, I will not give any Republican litigants or causes any special consideration if they come before me in a future case. Judges must be nonpartisan and fair in the decisions. I won’t lose a moment of sleep if I correctly decide a case contrary to a Republican litigant or cause, so long as they lose fairly on the merits.
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, please explain.
No
Have you ever been penalized for sexual misconduct in either civil or criminal court? If so, please explain.
No
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else? Please explain.
I adhere to the textualist view of interpretation as explained and championed by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. It is simply a commitment to interpreting any instrument - contract, deed, will, statute, constitution - according to its mean as written in the text. This is akin to originalism. But keep in mind the Montana Constitution dates back only to 1972. A quest for original meaning for that document is different from examining 1787-89 for the US Constitution.
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Past: US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Current: Justice Neil Gorsuch or Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Is there a separation of church and state in the Constitution? Please explain.
The US Constitution First Amendment outlaws any governmental restriction on the free exercise of religion. And it prohibits the governmental establishment of religion. The Montana Constitution has similar strictures. The point is that we have freedom of worship in this country, and the government cannot support one religion over another, and cannot tell us how or who to worship.
Should courts address threats to religious liberty in the United States? If so, how?
There is clearly a mechanism for anyone with proper standing to sue in a court of competent jurisdiction against a threat to religious liberty. If someone brings such a claim, the court should entertain the suit and address the threat.
Was Obergefell v. Hodges rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain.
According to the Supreme Court, its decision was properly decided per the US Constitution. It is a binding precedent for all lower courts that have a similar case or issue.
Was Bostock v. Clayton County rightly decided under the law? Please explain.
Answer needs more space.
I agree that “the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66 (2000); quoting Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).
Agree
There are problems with this case. There is not a clear majority for the holding, and Justice Thomas pointed out the Court did not establish a standard of scrutiny. The other odd issue is Justice Scalia finding no fundamental right to parent in the US Constitution. Why is that? Because that is a state law issue, properly left to states under our system of federalism. I agree with the excerpt above. But the case likely requires revisiting in the US Supreme Court to get a majority opinion.
What should a judge do when legislative texts and court precedents dictate different results?
This is an odd question. One reason a prior precedent may differ from a statute is because the statute has been amended since the prior case. In that case, the newly amended statute generally controls unless there are other factors at play. The other instance may be because a prior precedent is based on a Constitutional issue, and the legislation may be written contrary to the Constitution. That requires careful parsing to properly interpret. In any event, the judge must follow both issues back to the source to properly understand why they differ, what each means, and then reach an interpretation based on sound interpretive principles.
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
There is an extensive body of case law at both the state and federal level on this, and there is a great deal of disagreement on this issue. The most important question is whether events or facts have changed to require a new look at the precedent. Was it wrong at the time it was decided? Is it wrong now based on subsequent events? In no event should a judge overturn a prior precedent because of dislike or personal viewpoint or preference. It should only be based upon sound Constitutional principles, fundamentals of interpretation, and proper understanding of events or factors which have changed since the original decision.
When, if ever, should a judge take popular opinion or the social views of the majority into consideration?
Law passed = majority
Do you believe the meaning of the Constitution changes over time, absent changes through the amendment process of Article V?
No
No the Constitution’s meaning does not change over time. We just have more opportunities to understand how its meaning plays out in our lives.
What do you believe is the single most important quality a judge should possess?
Constant desire to learn and improve. We all make mistakes and we all confront new issues and challenges. A good judge should be always learning, always improving. Every day, the people who come to court expert and deserve a fair and impartial judge who will give them his or her very best.
If you are an incumbent judge, describe a recent instance in which you acted to preserve your judicial independence. If you are an aspiring judge, how do you plan to remain independent if elected to the bench?
How to remain independent? First, don’t read the newspapers to see all the criticism of your rulings. Second, remember the appellate court should focus on answering questions of law, not deciding case outcomes. That means getting the interpretation right is more important than picking winners or losers in individual cases. The long term integrity of the law is more important than making any supporter or opponent happy or unhappy.
2ND AMENDMENT
The right to bear arms is fundamental and must be protected.
Strongly Agree
As a state judge, the federal constitutional issues are less likely to be in my caseload.
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
Which branch of government do you believe was intended to wield the most authority?
From the federal point of view, it is commonly accepted that the legislative branch was designed to be the most powerful. But power has migrated over time to the executive. In Montana, our system seems designed to give more power to the executive. We have a part time citizen legislature. My goal is to focus on keeping the judicial branch within its proper role and authority.
How should the court address public health and individual freedoms in the time of a public health emergency?
Need more space.
