The State Board of Equalization must certify residential property tax values in Wyoming, a Laramie County District Court ruled Friday.
Gov. Mark Gordon filed a lawsuit against the board Tuesday, after the panel concluded earlier this month that it could not certify the results due to disparities created by a 4% tax cap on residential properties enacted by the Wyoming Legislature two years ago.
Gordon also asked the court to require certification while the case proceeds, which a judge agreed to do. A noncertification, as the board warned, could prevent local governments from collecting 2026 taxes on residential properties — a key revenue source of public services like K-12 education, roads, sewers and law enforcement.
The Wyoming Legislature passed the cap in 2024 to relieve homeowners grappling with rising property taxes. The cap, structured as an exemption, has created nonuniform assessments across the state, including “thousands of value ‘inversions’ in each county,” such as when a higher-market-value home is assessed at a lower taxable value than a lower-market-value home, according to a report released last week by the board.
Because of its constitutional obligation to ensure uniformity, the board wrote in the report that it could not certify residential land or improvement values while the cap is in place.
Five days after the report, the governor directed the attorney general’s office to file a lawsuit to force the board to certify residential property tax values. The state then also filed an emergency motion Thursday, designed to prohibit the board from voting against certification while the legal battle works its way through the courts.
Laramie County District Court Judge Nathaniel Hibben granted that motion Friday afternoon.
“The board might be right or not,” Hibben said. “That question will be answered in time, applying presumably a rational basis level of review and established rules of constitutional interpretation. But that ultimate decision will be made by the court.”
At the hearing, Supervising Attorney General Jim Peters argued that the board “exceeded its authority” and asked that the court require it “to follow the law and to perform its duty with the presumption that the statutes in effect are constitutional.”
In its report, the board noted it lacks the authority to declare a statute unconstitutional, Peters said, “it essentially did so anyway.”
Failing to follow the law “disrupts constitutional and separation of values and separation of powers,” Peters said, “and that harm is not quantifiable.”
Cat Young, attorney for the board, meanwhile, argued that the state failed to meet the high threshold necessary for a court to grant an emergency motion.
“There is no verified complaint here,” Young said. “All the complaint represents are unsworn allegations and legal argument. And the only affidavit submitted … does not identify any immediate or irreparable injury.”
The purpose of emergency injunctive relief, Young said, “is to preserve the status quo.” As such, the court forcing the board to certify several weeks ahead of its statutory deadline of Aug. 3 “is the opposite of status quo.”
Following arguments, the court recessed for 20 minutes before Hibben ruled from the bench.
The board may document in its certifications that it is doing so “pursuant to this order,” Hibben said, “and may not within its decision its constitutional concerns.”
A next hearing in the case is scheduled July 6.
