A federal judge left six University of Wyoming sorority sisters with no choice but to appeal to a higher court when he dismissed their case in August. That’s according to the plaintiff’s latest filings in the ongoing legal battle over Kappa Kappa Gamma’s admittance of the first transgender sorority member in the state’s history. 

When U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson dismissed the case in August, he did so without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs could file an improved version of their claims in his court. But the sorority sisters’ attorneys don’t see it that way, arguing Johnson’s ruling effectively prevents their clients from submitting a revised lawsuit leaving an appeal to a higher court as their only recourse

“The decision of the district court is final and appealable because it dismisses all of Plaintiffs’ claims and does so on legal grounds that Plaintiffs cannot cure with an amended complaint,” plaintiffs stated in filings on Monday. 

The argument came in response to attorneys for Kappa Kappa Gamma asking the federal appeals court to toss the case out since Johnson’s ruling was not one that could be appealed. 

Tuesday, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ordered both parties to file briefs. 

“No conclusive decision will be made regarding appellate jurisdiction now or before briefing on the merits is completed,” the order stated. “The parties may address appellate jurisdiction further in their merits briefs, if appropriate.”


Jaylyn Westenbroek, Hannah Holtmeier, Allison Coghan, Grace Choate, Madeline Ramar and Megan Kosar sued their UW sorority, Kappa Kappa Gamma, earlier this year for admitting Artemis Langford, a transgender woman. 

After initially seeking to sue anonymously, the sorority sisters asked the court to void Langford’s membership in the group on the basis of her transgender identity. Langford was admitted by a vote of the local chapter’s membership in 2022, and plaintiffs argued that broke the organization’s bylaws and breached housing contracts. 

Shortly before the school year began, Johnson ruled that a court cannot interfere with how the sorority determines its membership since it’s a private, voluntary organization. He also ruled that the plaintiffs failed to adequately state a claim against Langford and the sorority. Johnson, however, left the door open for the defendants to refile by ruling “without prejudice.” 

Instead of refiling in the lower court, the sorority sisters hired high-powered appeals attorneys and filed a notice of appeal in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver last month. They were then challenged by the sorority’s attorneys on a procedural requirement of the federal appellate courts. 

“Appellants appeal a district court order that is not appealable,” lawyers for the sorority stated in a motion to dismiss

“Under this Court’s precedent, a dismissal without prejudice that does not dismiss the entire case is not a final appealable order,” they argued. 

Footnote 67 

Both parties focus on a single footnote of Johnson’s ruling, but make different arguments about what it means. 

“If plaintiffs wish to amend their complaint, the Court advises Plaintiffs that they devote more than 6% of their complaint to their legal claims against Defendants,” footnote 67 states. “It also counsels Plaintiffs to provide more factual detail, where feasible, as well as highlight the Defendant(s) it sues under each count and relevant state statutes and authority. Finally, if provided another opportunity to clarify unclear language within an amended complaint, Plaintiffs should not copy and paste their complaint in lieu of elaboration or legal research that assists the Court in disentangling their claims.”

This excerpt, in particular, is where the court “plainly did not exclude” the plaintiffs from refiling, according to the attorneys for the sorority. 

Attorneys for the sorority sisters, however, argue that Johnson’s  conditional language does not guarantee they would be permitted to file an amended complaint. They also argue doing so would be a “futile endeavor” since there are no more facts they could present or develop to the lower court. 

“The district court merely discussed what might happen ‘if’ plaintiffs were allowed to amend,” the attorneys argue. “As the rest of the order makes clear, however, no amendment could cure the legal grounds for dismissal on which the district court relied.” 

The sorority sisters have a Dec. 4 deadline. Kappa Kappa Gamma will have to respond after that initial briefing.

Maggie Mullen reports on state government and politics. Before joining WyoFile in 2022, she spent five years at Wyoming Public Radio.

Join the Conversation


Want to join the discussion? Fantastic, here are the ground rules: * Provide your full name — no pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish and expects commenters to do the same. * No personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats. Keep it clean, civil and on topic. *WyoFile does not fact check every comment but, when noticed, submissions containing clear misinformation, demonstrably false statements of fact or links to sites trafficking in such will not be posted. *Individual commenters are limited to three comments per story, including replies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. There were 7 disgruntled ‘sisters’ originally who didn’t want to be identified. Why? Disguised bigotry!? The grounds for dismissal from KKG are clearly defined. The process is fair and reasonable. The petulant demands of these few to shape Kappa to their liking is narcissistic behavior at its worst. True sisters don’t hurt one another or the organization which has given so much to so many for so long! We voted and we chose our sister! If you don’t like it, Move On!

  2. Thank you, Maggie. Another important and well-written piece documenting this event. Good to know you have left such an excellent note of this moment for future historians. What you write is IMPORTANT for the record and will be remembered!