A win in Montana Supreme Court for the right to earn a living
In Kalispell, Montana, Parker Noland thought he was doing what young entrepreneurs are supposed to do: spot a problem, build a solution, and get to work.
After a medical discharge brought Parker back home from the Army, he set his sights on starting a small debris-hauling business targeting underserved construction sites around Flathead County. He secured a loan, bought a few dumpsters and a specialized truck, and posted ads to drum up customers.
But within a few days, the state shut him down.
The Montana Public Service Commission issued a cease-and-desist letter, telling Parker he couldn’t haul construction debris without first obtaining a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CON)—a government permission slip that, in practice, gives incumbent waste companies the power to block new competition.
The Commission requires applicants to prove that there is a “public need” for new service, and it considers whether new competition might “harm” existing carriers. Existing waste companies can protest a new entrant’s application, without even having to justify—beyond a service area conflict—why they’re trying to block a competitor.
It’s a competitor’s veto, enforced by the state.
After Parker applied through his company, existing certificate holders—including massive, well-funded waste disposal companies—demanded sensitive financial information that no small business owner would be eager to share with a competitor. Facing a drawn-out administrative fight, Parker ultimately withdrew his application. Montana’s system had successfully kept a newcomer out.
Parker turned to the courts, challenging Montana’s CON laws as unconstitutional under the Montana Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. Undeterred by a loss in the district court, Parker appealed his case, represented free of charge by Pacific Legal Foundation.
On December 23, 2025, the Montana Supreme Court delivered a major win: It revived Parker’s constitutional challenge and sent the case back to the district court to further analyze each constitutional provision. It also rejected the lower court’s dismissal of Parker’s challenge on the grounds that the other applicants have had the resources and patience to successfully overcome protesting incumbents.
“Parker never asked for special treatment—just a fair chance to work,” PLF attorney Jack Brown said. “The court recognized that forcing entrepreneurs to face a competitor’s veto to enter the market is an injury that triggers constitutional scrutiny.”
The court reasoned that the injury Parker alleges isn’t only the final denial of a permit. It’s the existence of a process that forces entrepreneurs to prove “need” and run a gauntlet of protests and discovery demands before they’re even allowed to compete.
When government empowers incumbent companies to weaponize regulation against startups, it doesn’t just harm entrepreneurs; it harms consumers, especially in rural and underserved areas where the big players don’t provide adequate service. Economic liberty means the freedom to earn an honest living without having to ask your competitors for permission.
