Court says lies used against Wyoming legislators are politics as usual

When public figures file a defamation lawsuit against people or entities that have allegedly lied about them, proving it was done with “actual malice” is a high bar to winning the case. That standard requires public officials to prove the defendant either knowingly published a false statement or did so with reckless disregard for the truth.

That said, it was outrageous when a Uinta County District Court judge dismissed a lawsuit last Thursday filed by two Sweetwater County lawmakers who were the victims of a clear political smear without a shred of truth.

Here’s the backstory: The WY Freedom PAC — the campaign arm of the far-right Freedom Caucus that controls the House — sent mailers and text messages accusing “traditional” conservative GOP Reps. Cody Wylie and J.T. Larson, both of Rock Springs, of joining the Democrats’ “radical left” and voting to remove President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot.

The Wyoming Legislature has never considered, debated or voted on any proposal to remove Trump from the ballot in any election, in any state.

Never. Please let that sink in.

Obviously, given Trump’s immense popularity among voters in the state during his three presidential runs, the bogus claim demonized the pair of incumbents within the Republican ranks.

Both Wylie and Larson were re-elected, at least partially because they successfully countered the lie with a defamation lawsuit they jointly filed against the defendant about a month before the 2024 primary. They also increased their campaign spending and went door-to-door to talk to more voters and express their personal support for Trump.

“The purpose of this case is for our courts to make a determination of where that line needs to be drawn when making political speech,” Larson told USA Today when the lawsuit was filed. “I’m a full supporter of freedom of speech, but when there are lies made about somebody that can impact their reputation, then where do you draw that line? That’s the question.” 

After being sued, the PAC doubled down and sent out even more mailers against Larson, Wylie and other Republican opponents of the Freedom Caucus. 

The lawsuit was set for a highly anticipated five-day trial, but Judge James Kaste in Evanston tossed it out before the case went to a jury. Kaste ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant’s statements against Larson and Wylie were made with “actual malice.”

But Kaste labored mightily is his decision to connect the supposed dots between what the mailers said about a nonexistent vote overTrump being removed from the ballot with the defendant’s claims that the lawmakers’ “votes” actually related to a budget footnote to require the Legislature’s approval of the secretary of state spending taxpayers’ money on out-of-state lawsuits in which Wyoming wasn’t a party.

Secretary of State Chuck Gray filed an amicus brief in Trump’s appeal of a Colorado case that took his name off the ballot because of evidence that the president incited a riot during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. However, the U.S. high court ruled in Trump’s favor.

Some Wyoming lawmakers supported the budget footnote aimed at limiting the secretary of state’s power to litigate on the state’s behalf — an authority historically held by the governor.

Larson voted for that footnote and Wylie abstained, but it was left out of the final budget bill passed by the House and Senate. That makes it even more irrelevant to the PAC’s switcheroo, from lying about a House vote to take Trump off the ballot to another false claim that these “radical left” Republicans used the budget to do their dirty work against Trump.

The two main people who crafted the mailers were WY Freedom PAC Chair Kari Drost and Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, then-chair of the Freedom Caucus, based on their messages and separate depositions.

“Even [Drost and Bear’s] crafty wording of these statements does not clearly establish their awareness of the falsity of those statements or that they subjectively entertained serious doubts as to the truth of these statements,” Kaste wrote. “In fact, because they are merely speculation about the indirect effect of the votes, the statements cannot be proven true or false.”

Kaste excused the underlying lies about Larson’s and Wylie’s action as protected free speech and politics as usual. This is where Kaste’s judgment is most questionable, especially in light of a previous judge’s order last year that the case should proceed. 

Sweetwater County District Court Judge Richard Lavery was initially assigned the defamation case, but it was sent to Kaste when Lavery reached the mandatory retirement age for district court judges.

Lavery heard the arguments for both sides and, in a 49-page order, ruled that the case should at least advance to the evidence-swapping phase and not be dismissed. 

Here’s the most salient point Lavery made in contrast with how his successor saw the case: The judge concluded in March 2025 that the WY Freedom PAC “fabricated a putative ‘vote’ on an issue that never came before the Legislature.”

The PAC’s attorneys told the judge that the mailers and text messages “were made in the court of political campaigning, where imaginative expressions and hyperbole are at their zenith.” 

That apparently decided the issue for Kaste, who tried to wrap it in a bow by citing Hein v. Lacy in 1980, when a Kansas state senator sued a person who sent a mailer that falsely claimed he favored “pot and gays.” That lawsuit was dismissed, with the presiding judge ruling that “a person who holds political office should expect that opposition to his candidacy for reelection will be expressed at times with distortion and vituperation.”

What’s the next step in this argument? If political operatives don’t take advantage of their First Amendment rights and lie about their employer’s enemies, are they committing political malpractice?

I know that’s not a real crime, or even a real policy position, but maybe the Freedom Caucus will make it one if they maintain control of the House in this year’s election. Having it on the books as an incentive for more PACs to do the “right” bad things, coupled with this ruling that defamation lawsuits are virtually unwinnable for public officials, could certainly reduce defendants’ legal bills.

Of course, that’s ludicrous, like the WY Freedom PAC’s mailers, but c’mon now: I’m just exercising my free speech rights. And Kaste’s ruling demonstrates that a lie isn’t even a lie anymore — and will result in no consequences for those who tell them — if it’s just intended to influence voters.