Case: Johnson v. State of Wyoming II

This case is a challenge to Wyoming's criminal abortion ban and medication abortion plan.

On March 21, 2023, Chelsea’s Fund, Circle of Hope Healthcare Services, and four private residents of the State of Wyoming filed a complaint in the District Court of the Ninth Judicial District for Teton County against the Governor of Wyoming, the state’s Attorney General, as well as the local city and county police officials. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs challenged the state’s newly passed criminal abortion ban and medication abortion ban. This complaint was filed after a prior complaint on the state’s abortion trigger ban had effectively become moot given the new law (see Johnson v. State of Wyoming I). The criminal abortion ban was signed into law on March 18, 2018. It prohibited abortions in Wyoming with limited exceptions, including but not limited to treating an ectopic pregnancy, saving the life of the mother, sexual assault, and pre-viability abortions. The criminal medication ban was also signed into law on March 18; it prohibited “prescrib[ing], dispens[ing], distribut[ing], sell[ing] or us[ing] any drug for the purpose of procuring or performing an abortion.” The abortion medication ban had even more limited exceptions than the criminal abortion ban.

Ultimately, the plaintiffs sought declaratory relief that both abortion bans violated the Wyoming constitution, as well as injunctive relief to prevent both from taking effect or being enforced while their case was pending before the state trial court. For purposes of the injunction against the criminal abortion ban, the plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) against the defendants. The case was assigned to Judge Melissa M. Owens. 

On March 22, 2023, Judge Owens granted the TRO due to the constitutional rights at stake in the matter as well as the issues of first impression raised by the plaintiffs. The TRO, thus, enjoined the criminal abortion ban from being enforced. 

The plaintiffs then filed a motion for temporary restraining order against the criminal medication ban on May 10, 2023. The criminal medication ban was slated to become effective on July 1st, 2023, but the plaintiffs sought to enjoin its enforcement. On September 19, 2023, Judge Owens granted the TRO, thereby blocking enforcement of the medication abortion ban from taking effect. 

On September 23, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment for violations of the Wyoming constitution’s provisions on establishment and free exercise of religion, equal protection, and right of healthcare access, while also being void for vagueness. Defendants then cross-motioned for summary judgment on October 5, 2023 alleging the new laws did not violate the state constitution. On April 9, 2024 the Wyoming Supreme Court declined to resolve any of these questions. 

On November 18, 2024 the Wyoming trial court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgement after finding that health care decisions are a fundamental right protected by the Wyoming state constitution's Health Care Amendment, which explicitly protects the right of competent adults in Wyoming to make and pay for their own health care decisions. The court simultaneously denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court issued a permanent injunction to prevent the state from enforcing the abortion ban. 

On December 20, 2024 Wyoming appealed the injunction to the Wyoming Supreme Court. The Court heard oral argument on April 16, 2025. 

On January 6, 2026, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that the right to abortion is protected by the Wyoming Constitution and that the abortion bans were unconstitutional. Chief Justice Boomgaarden authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Fox and Jarosh, with Justice Fenn specially concurring and Justice Gray dissenting.

The sole dispositive issue before the Wyoming Supreme Court was whether the Abortion Laws unduly infringed on a woman's right to make health care decisions under Article 1, § 38 of the Wyoming Constitution, a provision Wyoming voters had approved in 2012 guaranteeing each competent adult "the right to make his or her own health care decisions" and directing the State to "preserve these rights from undue governmental infringement."

All five justices agreed that abortion constitutes "health care" under the plain dictionary meanings of that term, and that the right to make one's own health care decisions under Article 1, § 38 is a fundamental right explicitly guaranteed by the Wyoming Constitution. The three-justice majority held that strict scrutiny applied to laws restricting this fundamental right, reasoning that the constitutional text's requirements that restrictions be "necessary" and not constitute "undue governmental infringement" aligned with the two core elements of strict scrutiny, while also placing the burden on the State to justify any restrictions. The State failed to meet that burden, presenting no evidentiary proof to demonstrate that the abortion bans were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest; the majority identified three specific provisions as illustrative of this failure, including an unworkable lethal fetal anomaly exception, a medication ban exception that excluded mental health conditions despite those conditions being the leading cause of maternal death in the United States, and a sexual assault and incest exception that both undermined the State's stated interest in protecting unborn life and created substantial barriers for victims seeking lawful care. 

The Court also took the occasion to overrule its prior reliance on the Salerno "no-set-of-circumstances" standard for facial constitutional challenges, holding that the proper inquiry is to apply the relevant constitutional test directly to the terms of the statute. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's permanent injunction and declined to address Plaintiffs' additional claims of unconstitutional vagueness, equal protection, substantive due process, and religious freedom violations, finding the Article 1, § 38 issue fully dispositive.¹² Additionally, plaintiffs were awarded costs. 

Wyoming petitioned for a hearing on January 20, but the Wyoming Supreme Court denied the petition on February 18 and remanded the case to the district court. The Clearinghouse does not have access to the district court docket at this time, but, as of May 2026, the case is presumed closed.