Wyoming Supreme Court prevents Right to Life, Wyoming lawmakers from joining abortion case

Feb. 2—CHEYENNE — The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the group Right to Life Wyoming (RTLW) and two Wyoming lawmakers do not have the right to intervene in a Teton County abortion rights case.

These three have fought since June to join the case that was taken up by Teton County District Court, after District Judge Melissa Owens put a temporary block on two anti-abortion statutes that were set to take effect last July 1. Owens denied the three groups, and Secretary of State Chuck Gray who also tried to join, in June.

Owens' decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court by all except for Gray.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Kate M. Fox and her fellow justices wrote in the Friday decision that the advocacy interests of RTLW, an anti-abortion organization, do not "distinguish ... interests" of the policy concerns held by the plaintiffs in the case.

"The persuasive weight of authority holds that advocating for a policy and lobbying for legislation to enact that policy does not give an individual or entity a protectable interest in a legal challenge to the subsequently enacted law," Fox wrote in the decision.

The chief justice summarized the requirements to intervene in a lawsuit in her decision. There are four total requirements, according to Wyoming statute:

1. The applicant's interest must be related to the property or transaction subject to action.

2. The action must "impair or impede" the applicant's ability to protect their interest.

3. Proof that the applicant's interest is not already represented by a party in the case.

4. The applicant's intervention must be timely.

Fox referenced an Illinois case in the decision to deny RTLW direct intervention, Keith v. Daley, which involved the Illinois Pro-Life Coalition, or IPC, a lobbyist group that advocates for anti-abortion policy. In this case, the lobbyist group attempted to intervene in a lawsuit against the state that challenged the constitutionality of the state's statute regulating abortion.

Similar to the Teton County case, the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the district court's decision to reject IPC's intervention.

The 7th Circuit ruled that only the attorney general and the Cook County state's attorney "are required to defend and enforce the law of the state," according to court documents. The purpose of IPC, which the justices said was a similar group to RTLW, "is essentially communicative and persuasive." Other courts reached similar conclusions, all of which were listed in the Wyoming Supreme Court decision, such as Northland Family Planning Clinic, Inc. v. Cox, League of Women Voters of Minnesota v. Ritchie, and Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Granholm.

"As these cases illustrate, once the abortion laws challenged in this case were enacted, the responsibility for enforcing and defending the laws shifted to the government," the justices wrote in the decision. "At that point, RTLW's advocacy for the laws and its interest in the policy underlying them became no different from or greater than that of the public at large."

Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, R-Cody, and Rep. Chip Neiman, R-Hulett, had also fought to join the case. The representatives argued they had a right to intervene since they "were the lead sponsor and the chief legislative shepherd of the statutes," according to court documents. Furthermore, both lawmakers said they had an interest in the case to defend and protect state statutes, including "laws governing abortion and to protect the health and general welfare of the people."

In their rejection of the lawmakers' arguments, the justices first reasoned that the outcome of the case would not affect lawmakers' ability to legislate or vote on legislation, and, in her decision, Fox said the judiciary's power was a product of the checks and balances of government.

"Regardless of the outcome of this case, the Legislature may still legislate in these areas. To the extent it must do so within constitutional parameters established by a court decision in the case," Fox wrote.

The lawmakers referenced a Supreme Court case, Berger v. N.C. State Conference of the NAACP, in their argument. In this case, the court reasoned that a state has a protectable interest in defending its own laws and may select who will represent the state in its case.

The justices noted that in the Teton County case, however, "the Wyoming Legislature did not authorize Representatives Rodriguez-Willliams and Neiman, or any legislator, to represent the State's interests in defending the two abortion statutes."

Reactions to the decision

Senior Counsel Tim Garrison for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative nonprofit legal organization, released a statement regarding the court's decision, expressing his disappointment in the matter, on behalf of the organization.

"Wyoming has a strong and compelling interest in protecting women and unborn children from the harms of abortion, and the state will continue its lifesaving efforts," Garrison wrote in the statement. "We're proud to serve alongside Right to Life of Wyoming and Reps. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams and Chip Neiman, who remain dedicated to seizing every opportunity to protect vulnerable members of our society."

Rodriguez-Williams also released a statement after seeing the release of the Wyoming Supreme Court's decision.

"While we are disappointed in the court's decision, we are proud to continue our pro-life work in the Legislature and in our everyday lives," Rodriguez-Williams wrote in the statement. "I pray that the courts will uphold Wyoming's pro-life law, which will save lives and protect women's health. No one can deny that life is a human right."

Hannah Shields is the Wyoming Tribune Eagle's state government reporter. She can be reached at 307-633-3167 or hshields@wyomingnews.com. You can follow her on X @happyfeet004.