Case: Johnson v. State of Wyoming III

This case is a challenge to a series of Wyoming state laws regulating pregnant people and abortion providers in Wyoming. 

Procedural Background

Plaintiffs originally filed suit in Natrona County District Court on February 28, 2025. On March 11, having not been granted a TRO hearing, plaintiffs dismissed that case and refiled in Teton County District Court. Ten days later, the court dismissed the second lawsuit, since patients had been denied care at a clinic in Natrona County. The case was refiled in Natrona County District Court; this summary concerns this third lawsuit.

The Lawsuit

On March 21, 2025, Chelsea's Fund, JTP Professional Service Corporation (“Just The Pill”), and Circle of Hope Health Care Services, Inc., (“Wellspring”), a registered nurse, and two OB-GYNs (collectively, the "abortion defenders") filed a lawsuit challenging a series of targeted restrictions of abortion providers with criminal consequences (the "Criminal TRAP Laws"). Chelsea's Fund and Just the Pill are nonprofits that help people access abortion care, and Wellspring is an abortion clinic. Represented by private counsel, the abortion defenders filed suit in the Teton County District Court against Wyoming, the Governor, the Attorney General, the Teton County Sheriff, and the Jackson Chief of Police.

Specifically, the abortion defenders challenged House Bill 42 and 64 (collectively, the "Criminal TRAP Laws"). HB 64 mandated that a person must undergo an ultrasound at least 48 hours before a medication abortion, and that a violation would constitute a misdemeanor. HB 42 mandated:

• Facilities providing procedural abortion be licensed as Ambulatory Surgical Centers ("ASC");
• Physicians performing procedural abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 10 miles; 
• Physicians report each procedural abortion performed to the Department of Health;
• Procedural abortions may only be performed by physicians licensed in Wyoming; and 
• Abortion is not recognized as "health care" under Article 1, section 30 of the Wyoming Constitution.

Plaintiffs alleged that the laws violated the state and federal equal protection clauses; violated the state constitution's prohibition against the establishment of religion by imposing a sectarian religious viewpoint on all Wyoming citizens; and were unconstitutionally vague. They requested injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as costs and fees. 

After an April 8th hearing, the district court enjoined HB 42 and HB 64 on April 21, 2025. The court held that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the challenged laws violated their constitutional right to control their own healthcare decisions; it reserved ruling on the other arguments for the time.

On May 15, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint challenging a new law, HB 164, that authorized prescribers and pharmacists to prescribe FDA-approved drugs for off-label use without risk to their licensure – except for medications intended to induce abortions. Then, on June 6, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of HB 164. The court granted the motion on June 30. At this time, the Clearinghouse does not have access either to the amended complaint or to the order granting the PI.

The next spring, plaintiffs once again sought to expand the scope of the litigation, moving for leave to file supplemental claims to challenge Wyoming's new six-week abortion ban. The court denied the motion on March 31, 2026 and, that same day, plaintiffs filed a separate challenge to the six-week ban in the District Court for Natrona County. Johnson v. State of Wyoming IV. 

As of June 1, 2026, the case is ongoing.