WHERE THINGS STAND NATIONWIDE

The Expected Roadmap

The Corporate Power Reset strategy is to be implemented state by state. If there was no opposition from corporate interests, that could be it. But we don’t live in that world, so: to be successful it needs to survive opposition from the courts at the federal level.

As a result, the expected roadmap has always been this:

  1. The corresponding policy passes in one or several states.
  2. Opposition will be filed in one of the “US District Courts” of that State, the lowest level of Federal Court. “US District Court” is the official name for such a court; other names used are: "District court", "federal district court", "U.S. trial court", "trial court", "court of first instance", "lower court".
  3. Whatever decision(s) the District Court(s) render(s), it will be appealed in the corresponding “U.S. Court of Appeals”. “U.S. Court of Appeals” is the official name for such a court; other names used are: "Court of Appeals", "Circuit Court of Appeals", "circuit court", "the circuit", "[Nth] Circuit", "appeals court", "appellate court", "regional appeals court".
  4. Whatever decision(s) the US Court(s) of Appeals render(s), it will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
  5. The Supreme Court will probably accept to hear it if it has survived the previous challenges.
Dive Deeper

Here are a few scenarios:

The policy passes in a State, different organizations bring up lawsuits, in different US District Courts within that same State.

The system is built to stop several suits over the same law from pulling in different directions. Similar cases can be merged before a single judge, and if two cover the same issue, usually the first one filed is allowed to go forward, while the other is paused, dismissed, or transferred to join it. That's why challengers tend to join forces rather than file rival lawsuits. If despite all this, lawsuits actually run in parallel, different district judges in the same state can reach different conclusions. If so, temporarily you could see the law blocked by one judge and upheld by another within the same state. However, that inconsistency would then get resolved in the US Appeals Court.

The policy passes in several states, and the legal battle leads to it being struck down in the State A's US District Court but upheld in State's B.

The two cases would move up to the appeals courts separately, and which US Court of Appeals hears each case depends on the States' locations:

  • if both States are in the same “circuit”, they have the same US Court of Appeals, and that is the Court that will hear these two cases and decide whether the policy gets upheld or struck down in the States it covers.
  • if the two States are in different “circuits”, the two cases go to two different Courts of Appeals, and those courts can disagree. If they do disagree, that situation is called a “circuit split”, and that pushes the question up to the final level: the U.S. Supreme Court. Settling disagreements between the appeals courts is the main reason the Court agrees to hear a case, since federal constitutional law isn't supposed to mean different things in different places. The Supreme Court then gives one nationwide answer that applies to every State in the US.

So far, as of July 2026:

Step 1 has taken place in one state: Hawaii.

The policy took the form of a Bill, called “SB 2471”, which the legislature passed and Gov. Josh Green signed into law as Act 11 in May of this year, 2026. It is set to take effect on July 1 next year, 2027.

Step 2 has begun: a lawsuit was filed on June 5 in the U.S. District Court for the State of Hawaii.

Find Our More About this Lawsuit

The plaintiff is the Grassroot Institute, a think tank, and the legal-advocacy group representing it is the Institute for Free Speech.

The lawsuit is filed against state officials who are being sued in their official capacities, i.e. as holders of office, not as private individuals: Hawaii's Attorney General (Anne Lopez) and the director of the state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (Nadine Ando).

Note that suing officials in their official capacity is typical for a constitutional challenge to a state law. This is because the Eleventh Amendment generally blocks suing a state itself (or a state agency) in federal court. So instead, the individual state officials in charge of enforcing the law are sued in their official capacity (by contrast, suing someone in their individual capacity would be about seeking money damages from the individuals, which is not the case in this kind of case).

The arguments: The organization suing argues that Act 11, the new law, violates the First Amendment's protections of free speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, and freedom of petition and assembly, and that key provisions are unconstitutionally vague. They say that Act 11 makes an exemption for news organizations — newspapers, broadcasters, periodicals — while restricting everyone else, and that the government cannot selectively decide which speakers enjoy First Amendment rights.

Relevant Official Documents

Court Docket (the case's docket number is: 1:26-cv-00279): view here

A court docket is a court's official record of everything that happens in a case, chronologically. It gives the timeline of everything that happens in the case, created as things happen. Think Captain's log.

Complaint: view here

The complaint is the document that starts a lawsuit — the first document filed where the side suing explains why they are suing. It names the parties, lists the legal claims, and ends with stating what "relief" they request, i.e. what they want the court to do — here, rule that Act 11 is unconstitutional and order it blocked.

As for step 3, this case would go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Where the Policy Has Been Attempted

As of July 2026, 15 states have attempted to make Corporate Power Reset policies law.

As of July 2026, two states have come further than others:

  • Hawaii, where it was signed into law as Act 11 in May of this year, 2026.
  • Montana, where it is on track to be on the ballot in November.

Usually, for important policies like the Corporate Power Reset, it takes several attempts for the policy to become law (i.e. it takes several successive bills introduced in different legislative cycles).

Yet in Hawaii the bill, SB 2471, went all the way through in one go: it became law in less than 4 months, making Hawaii the first state to enact the Corporate Power Reset .

Animated pixel-art diagram of the legislative journey for bill SB 2471 represented as an arcade game. A character labeled SB 2471 climbs 3 levels of stacked platforms representing the steps required to pass this bill. The 3 levels are Senate, House, and Governor. The level Senate has steps labelled Introduced, taken up by 2 committees, sent on by 2 committees, passed on the floor, the level House has steps labelled Taken up by 2 committees, sent on by 2 committees, passed on the floor, and the level Governor has one step labelled signed by Governor. SB 2471 climbs the steps all the way to the last one, with red, white and blue fireworks going off behind it after when it reaches this goal. An hourglass icon and a date frame appear above the stairs, with the date changing to indicate when important milestones were met. At the end of the animation, a frame appears indicating events that were too complex to illustrate and occurred towards the end of SB 2471's journey, between passing the House and getting into the Governor's office. These events are given in the next section of this webpage, under the subsection Hawaii's Bill SB 2471: Key Dates.

Hawaii & Montana's Experiences - Details

If you want the details of what been happening in Hawaii and Montana, below are some timelines and links to official documents.

Legislative Journey of Hawaii's Bill SB 2471: Key Dates
  • Jan 22 — Introduced in Hawaii Senate by Senator Karl Rhoads (District 13).
    • Senator Jarrett Keohokalole (District 24) co-sponsored it.
  • Jan 28 — Referred (i.e. assigned) to:
    • Committee on Commerce & Consumer Protection (CPN) — Chair: Senator Jarrett Keohokalole.
    • Committee on Judiciary (JDC) — Chair: Senator Karl Rhoads.
  • Feb 10 — CPN committee recommends the measure be passed, with amendments. Votes:
    • 3 Aye(s): Senator(s) Keohokalole, Fukunaga, Awa;
    • Aye(s) with reservations: none ;
    • No(es): none;
    • 2 Excused: Senator(s) Lamosao, McKelvey.
  • Mar 5 — JDC committee recommends the measure be passed, with amendments. Votes:
    • 5 Aye(s): Senator(s) Rhoads, Gabbard, Chang, San Buenaventura, Awa;
    • Aye(s) with reservations: none;
    • No(es): none;
    • Excused: none.
  • Mar 10 — Passed the Senate. Transmitted to the House.
  • Mar 12 — Referred to:
    • Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce (CPC) — Chair: Representative Scot Matayoshi.
    • Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs (JHA) — Chair: Representative David Tarnas.
  • Mar 24 — CPC committee recommends the measure be passed, with amendments. Votes:
    • 11 Aye(s): Representative(s) Matayoshi, Grandinetti, Chun, Ilagan, Ichiyama, Iwamoto, Kong, Lowen, Marten, Tam, Pierick;
    • Aye(s) with reservations: none;
    • No(es): none;
    • Excused: none.
  • April 8 — JHA committee recommends the measure be passed, with amendments. Votes:
    • 7 Aye(s): Representative(s) Tarnas, Poepoe, Belatti, Hashem, Kahaloa, Takayama;
    • Aye(s) with reservations: Representative(s) Shimizu;
    • 1 No(es): Representative(s) Garcia;
    • 2 Excused: Representative(s) Sayama, Cochran.
  • Apr 14 — Passed the House. Transmitted back to the Senate.
  • Apr 16 — Senate disagrees with House amendments. A conference committee is needed to reconcile.
  • Apr 23 — May 1: Conference committee meets repeatedly. Reaches agreement on May 1st.
  • May 6 — Both chambers adopt floor amendments.
  • May 8 — Both chambers pass it.
  • Thursday May 14 — Signed by Governor Josh Green.
Hawaii's Bill SB 2471: Links to Official Documents

Bill status & history page: view here

Final enrolled text (version signed into law): view here

Governor Green's signing announcement (Act 011, May 14, 2026): view here

The Montana Plan: Key Dates

In Montana, the ballot initiative in question was introduced by the “Transparent Election Initiative”. For more formation about this organization, you can visit their website.

With ups and downs, Montana's ballot initiative successfully completed steps 1 and 2: it was first introduced in August 2025, and had to be modified and reintroduced early 2026, in two different forms.

One of these (the statutory initiative) has now completed step 3, i.e. signature gathering:

The deadline to collect signatures was June 19th. The number needed is 30,121 verified signatures. In total, nearly 50,000 signatures have been collected, 34,906 have now been verified.

Given the comfortable number of signatures gathered, it is likely that enough of them will be deemed valid for the initiative to get certified (step 4), and therefore appear on the ballot next November.


The Montana Plan’s Journey to the Ballot

  • August 1, 2025 – The Transparent Election Initiative (TEI) submits a first ballot initiative, to the secretary of state. It meant to amend the state’s constitution — i.e. a constitutional initiative (BI-4, i.e. Ballot Issue #4). It would have rewritten Article XIII of the Montana Constitution to revoke all powers the state grants to artificial persons, then regrant only the ones needed to do business, leaving out the power to spend in politics.
  • October 24, 2025 – The Attorney General (Austin Knudsen) rejects it as not “legally sufficient”. His core objection is that it violates Montana’s “separate-vote” requirement, i.e. a single ballot question cannot bundle more than one substantive change. It also includes a “material harm to business” finding and a fiscal/litigation-cost statement.
  • November 3, 2025 – TEI challenges the rejection in the Montana Supreme Court.
  • January 6, 2026 – The Montana Supreme Court sides with the attorney general. (opinion 2026 MT 2; docket OP 25-0770)
  • January 8, 2026 – TEI submits two new proposals:
    • a new, simplified constitutional initiative (BI-9 / CI-135) , taking the supreme court’s arguments into account. A constitutional initiative is the preferred path because it would be much harder for a future legislature to undo than a statutory initiative.
    • a statutory initiative (BI-10 / I-194) – i.e. a regular state law rather than a constitutional change. The statutory route is added partly as insurance, because it has a lower signature threshold and there is time pressure if the policy is to make the November ballot.
  • March 6, 2026 — The statutory initiative clears review by the attorney general.
  • March 10, 2026 — BI-10 / I-194 is approved to gather signatures. The deadline to collect the signatures is June 19th.
  • March 18–19, 2026 — A coalition of nine business and industry groups (led by the Montana Chamber of Commerce and Montana Mining Association) petitions the Montana Supreme Court to strike BI-10 / I-194, arguing it is “facially unconstitutional” (i.e. unconstitutional as written): that it restricts protected political speech, is unconstitutionally vague, and unconstitutionally conditions the privilege of doing business on giving up First Amendment rights.
  • April 1, 2026 — The Montana Supreme Court dismisses the challenge as premature without ruling on the merits (opinion 2026 MT 67; docket OP 26-0176). The constitutional questions remain open and could be raised again if I-194 passes.
  • March 2026 — The attorney general (Austin Knudsen) rejects BI-9 / CI-135 the new, simplified constitutional initiative, finding it legally insufficient on separate-vote grounds similar to his prior objection to BI-4.
  • Late March 2026 — TEI challenges the rejection in the Montana Supreme Court.
  • April 24, 2026 — The Montana Supreme Court sides with TEI. (opinion 2026 MT 87; docket OP 26-0170)
  • April 30, 2026 — Secretary of State then approved BI-9 / CI-135 for signature gathering. The deadline is the same for all ballot initiatives each cycle, so June 19th as for BI-10 / I-194.
  • April - June 2026 — dispute over the wording of the official ballot statement for BI-9 / CI-135, between the attorney general and TEI. The disagreement was resolved by the Montana Supreme Court on June 9th (opinion 2026 MT 126; docket OP 26-0301), which in practice left too little time to gather the required number of signatures by the June 19th deadline. So, the constitutional version — which would be much harder for a future legislature to undo — will have to be refiled to be on a future ballot.
  • June 19, 2026 – TEI submits nearly 50,000 signatures for BI-10 / I-194 to Montana’s county election administrators.

The county election officials have until July 17th to verify the signatures they have received, and the secretary of states has until August 20th to certify BI-10 / I-194 for November’s ballot.

Montana Plan: Links to Official Documents

Proposed 2026 Ballot Issues (Montana Secretary of State): view here

This is the state's central register of ballot issues; it is the master record that lists every version of the measure — BI-4, BI-9/CI-135, and BI-10/I-194 — each with its official subject statement, submission date, current status, and a link to its full official text.

Official text — I-194 (Ballot Issue #10): view here

The statutory initiative (i.e. proposing a new state law rather than a constitutional change). This is the version that has gathered enough signatures to be now in the certification step. (This link may expire; if it has stopped working, use the central register's instead and search for the I-194 entry).

Official text — CI-135 (Ballot Issue #9): view here

The current, simplified constitutional initiative, refiled to satisfy the Supreme Court's single-subject ruling against BI-4 (again, if this link has stopped working, use the central register's instead and search for I-194 entry) and search for the CI-135 entry.

Supreme Court opinion — 2026 MT 2 (docket OP 25-0770, Jan 6, 2026): view here

The ruling that struck down the original Ballot Issue #4. The court held that BI-4 violated the Montana Constitution's separate-vote requirement — it bundled more than one substantive change into a single question — and affirmed the attorney general's finding that the measure was legally insufficient.

Supreme Court opinion — 2026 MT 67 (docket OP 26-0176, April 1, 2026): view here

The ruling that dismissed the business coalition's constitutionality challenge to the statutory BI-10 / I-194. The court declined to rule on the merits, holding that pre-ballot constitutional challenges are strongly discouraged and that, because I-194 had not yet qualified for the ballot, deciding its constitutionality would be premature. The constitutional questions remain open and could be raised again if I-194 passes.

Supreme Court opinion — 2026 MT 87 (docket OP 26-0170, April 24, 2026): view here

The ruling that cleared the constitutional Ballot Issue #9. The court reversed the attorney general and held that BI-9 did not violate the separate-vote requirement, reasoning that adding new constitutional matter doesn't count as two changes simply because that matter has operative content.

Supreme Court opinion — 2026 MT 126 (docket OP 26-0301, June 9, 2026): view here

The ruling that resolved the dispute over the wording of the official ballot statement for the constitutional ballot initiative BI-9 / CI-135. The court largely sided with the attorney general — upholding his authority to rewrite the statement and rejecting most of TEI's objections — and certified a court-revised statement to the Secretary of State.