A February 2023 incident outside Cowboys Bar in Great Falls has ignited concerns about the lack of strong legal protections for transgender people in Montana. After 59-year-old John P. Carr allegedly drove his truck into a transgender woman and pinned her against a building, many advocates say the case has become a troubling symbol of Montana’s reluctance to recognize and prosecute crimes motivated by anti-transgender bias. Adding to community frustration, legislators are advancing a measure that could punish parents for seeking gender-affirming medical care for their transgender children, compounding what transgender Montanans and allies describe as a climate of hostility and insufficient legal safeguards.
Carr was seen confronting the victim on February 17, 2023, outside Cowboys Bar. According to police reports, he had been asked to leave the establishment for “smacking a girl’s butt” and, shortly after, he turned his attention to the transgender victim, reportedly asking, “Are you one of those transgender people?” Witnesses say Carr continued yelling transphobic remarks. Moments later, he climbed into his pickup and accelerated forward, striking the victim and pinning her to the wall. Another person, who had been standing next to her, was forced to jump out of the way to avoid being hit. The victim suffered severe injuries, including a fractured pelvis, a deep puncture wound to her thigh, and internal bleeding.
Despite the apparent motivations behind this attack—Carr’s alleged anti-transgender outburst—no hate crime charges were filed. Carr was initially charged with two felonies: criminal endangerment and failure to remain at the scene of an accident resulting in serious bodily injury. However, Montana’s assault statutes lack explicit protections for individuals targeted because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. While the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act recognizes crimes against transgender individuals as potential hate crimes, no federal charges have materialized in this case. Chief Criminal Deputy County Attorney Kory Larsen ultimately offered Carr a plea deal that dropped the failure-to-remain charge in exchange for a plea of no contest to criminal endangerment. Carr now faces a suspended five-year sentence with no additional jail time.
Transgender advocates and community members have expressed outrage over what they see as a clear bias-motivated attack being addressed only through standard assault laws. They say the leniency of the plea agreement—especially given the seriousness of the victim’s injuries—illustrates Montana’s systemic failure to protect transgender people. Several local activists point out that the victim has struggled with extensive medical bills and ongoing physical therapy, and they question the message being sent to the public when violent acts with an apparent transphobic motive do not result in heightened legal consequences.
“Legislation should protect at-risk communities,” said one Great Falls advocate who helped organize an online fundraiser for the victim’s medical costs. “Here, it feels like the opposite is happening. We’re seeing a transgender woman nearly killed in a brutal attack, and the state’s laws simply have no mechanism to treat this as a hate crime. Now, lawmakers are moving forward with bills that punish the parents of trans children, rather than protect those children from violence and harassment.”
Indeed, even as Carr’s case was winding its way through the courts, Montana legislators pursued multiple bills that, according to critics, target transgender youth. Senate Bill 164 proposes expanding the child endangerment statute to include providing gender-affirming medical care—such as puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones—for minors under 16. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. John Fuller, R-Kalispell, would make parents and medical practitioners subject to criminal penalties if they knowingly help a minor access these treatments. Proponents claim they are acting to protect children from life-altering decisions, but opponents worry the measure will harm transgender youth, who often face significant mental health risks when denied care that aligns with their gender identity.
Medical professionals throughout the state have condemned the bill, pointing to widely accepted guidelines from major U.S. medical and psychological associations that affirm gender-affirming care can be essential to supporting the well-being of trans youth. These experts argue that puberty blockers are safe, reversible, and part of a rigorous process involving therapists, physicians, and the child’s family. They warn that removing access to such treatment can lead to increased anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation among transgender young people who feel their bodies are developing in conflict with their identity.
Supporters of SB 164 say parents do not have the right to consent to procedures they believe pose long-term health risks to minors. Critics counter that such bills criminalize parents for following established medical guidelines and effectively legislate transgender youth out of existence. “We worry that laws like this will push supportive families and skilled medical professionals out of Montana,” said one health care provider who offers therapy for transgender youth. “That makes an already vulnerable community even more isolated.”
The concerns extend beyond medical care. Another proposed law, House Bill 121, would enforce strict sex-segregation of public facilities based on “chromosomal makeup and reproductive biology.” Opponents fear that the legislation could lead to confusion, legitimize gender policing, and allow for baseless harassment of anyone whose appearance deviates from traditional gender norms. Critics see this as yet another sign that Montana lawmakers are willing to target transgender people across multiple facets of public life—even as violent acts against them fail to receive the full weight of legal scrutiny.
Transgender Montanans, their families, and allies find it difficult to overlook the troubling juxtaposition: a man who allegedly used his truck as a weapon to harm a transgender woman escapes with a suspended sentence, while the legislature focuses its efforts on restricting or criminalizing aspects of transgender identity and care. Many are calling for greater legal protections, including adding gender identity and sexual orientation to Montana’s hate crime statutes. Others advocate for stronger federal involvement in cases like Carr’s, arguing that local authorities have proven unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators fully accountable.
“We are not going anywhere,” said a member of the local transgender support group, responding to the wave of legislation. “We deserve to live our lives authentically and safely. Montanans—trans or otherwise—should stand together to ensure no one is singled out or left behind by our laws.”
The Bottom Line
As Carr’s case nears its official close and the legislature continues its session, transgender people and their allies face a dual challenge: grappling with the aftermath of a brutal attack that may never be designated as a hate crime and organizing to prevent new laws that could marginalize transgender youth even further. For many in the community, the question now is whether Montana’s policymakers can truly protect its citizens from violence and discrimination—or whether, in the face of growing public outcry, the state will continue down a path that leaves transgender residents without the legal and social safeguards they urgently need.
