Hours after the Wyoming Supreme Court published its long-awaited ruling on two abortion bans — striking them down on account of the state’s constitution — lawmakers held a closed-door meeting Tuesday to discuss next steps. Up for consideration, WyoFile has learned, was a dramatic change to the composition of the state’s highest court.
In Cheyenne, the Joint Appropriations Committee was gathered for the week to continue the budget hearings it began in December. It’s the committee’s responsibility to craft a budget bill ahead of next month’s legislative session.
Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Abby Angelos, R-Gillette, requested an executive session — a private meeting that the public cannot watch. Another lawmaker offered an explanation.
“And that executive session is to discuss the possible action … toward the judiciary in the budget,” House Appropriations Chairman John Bear, R-Gillette, said.
Rep. Jeremy Haroldson, R-Wheatland, seconded the motion and a majority of the committee voted “aye.”
“Somebody be ready to throw a bean bag at anybody that comes in the door,” Bear said.
Behind closed doors
The committee then privately discussed but did not take action on a proposal to reduce the Wyoming Supreme Court’s bench from five justices to three, multiple sources with direct knowledge of the meeting told WyoFile.
Sources also told WyoFile the discussion was in direct response to some members’ disapproval of the high court’s ruling that Wyoming’s two abortion bans are unconstitutional.
One of the bans was a first in the nation. Sponsored by Senate Appropriations Chairman Tim Salazar, R-Riverton, the 2023 law prohibited the use of pills for abortion. The second ban, sponsored by Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, a Cody Republican who now leads the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, prohibited abortion but included an exception for pregnancies that were the result of incest or sexual assault.
The state’s high court ruled 4-1 that the two laws conflict with the Wyoming Constitution, which protects individuals’ rights to make their own health care decisions.
Many of the committee’s members, including Angelos, Bear and Haroldson, are allies and members of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative Republican lawmakers that won control of the House in 2024. Last year, the caucus sharpened its critiques of the judiciary branch, alleging that the state’s process for selecting judges is shaped by “political insiders” and “left-wing institutional capture.”
Upon Tuesday’s ruling, the caucus quickly took aim at the Wyoming Supreme Court, calling the ruling “a stain on the Wyoming judicial branch” in a statement.
“After decades of liberal leadership in the governor’s office, the State Supreme Court has been filled with jurists who reject basic biology and human dignity,” the statement said.
Lawmakers respond
WyoFile reached out to Angelos, Bear, Haroldson and Salazar about the decision to discuss behind closed doors whether to reduce the number of the state’s supreme court justices. It did not receive a response from Bear, Haroldson or Salazar before publication.
When asked if she expected lawmakers to pursue cutting the high court’s bench and if she planned to support it, Rep. Angelos told WyoFile in an email that she “would never try to guess what 93 lawmakers choose to pursue.”
“They all represent vastly different people across the state and assuming my colleague’s intent would be akin to looking into a crystal ball,” she wrote.
“However, outside of this issue there have been discussion over the last couple of years among several legislators who do not sit on this committee about judicial reform,” Angelos wrote. “This is a broad discussion that we as representatives are hearing frequently from constituents across the state.”
As to why the discussion needed to take place in an executive session, Angelos pointed to state law.
“As stated in Wyoming Open meeting laws, when we as a committee seek legal counsel executive session is permitted,” she wrote in an email.
Lawmakers could, in theory, change the number of justices on the Wyoming Supreme Court. That decision would require approval in both the House and Senate — a tall order, particularly during a budget session when bills must clear an initial two-thirds vote. But among the lawmakers who discussed the idea are some of the more notable members of the Legislature, and the Freedom Caucus controls the lower chamber.
State law currently specifies that “the supreme court of Wyoming shall consist of five (5) justices,” while the Wyoming Constitution requires that the high court “consist of not less than three nor more than five justices as may be determined by the legislature.”
Out of step or on target?
While some lawmakers have suggested the judiciary is out of step with the public, polling suggests otherwise.
In 2024, the University of Wyoming surveyed residents ahead of that year’s general election. Among other things, it found that 41.5% of the state’s adults either strongly approve or approve of the way that Wyoming judges are handling their job. Another 45.1% neither approve nor disapprove, while 13.4% said they disapprove or strongly disapprove.
The Wyoming Legislature, meanwhile, received a lower approval rating and a higher disapproval rating.
More specifically, the survey found that 34.1% of the state’s adults either approve or strongly approve of the Wyoming Legislature’s handling of its job. Another 33.3% neither approve nor disapprove, while 32.7% said they disapprove or strongly disapprove.
The same survey found a wide range of views on abortion restrictions among Wyomingites. About 31% approved of the kind of ban struck down by the high court, with another 10.5% supporting a total ban. Nearly 39% supported a woman always having the right to an abortion, with the remainder supporting abortion “after the need … has been clearly established.”
A spokesperson for the judiciary branch declined to comment.
The 2026 budget session begins Feb. 9 in Cheyenne.
I truly also question (as usual) the truthfulness of many of these Representatives who make statements such as: “This is a broad discussion that we as representatives are hearing frequently from constituents across the state.” Really??? The UW survey that says only 13.4% of citizens disapprove or highly disapprove of how Wyoming Judges do their jobs…yet they “frequently” hear from constituents about this issue? Would love to see receipts! Or is there a little confirmation bias going on…like only listening to constituents that agree with you? Kind of like our Congressional representatives!
If you don’t like the constitution – then go about the steps to change it, like you did before (ironically). But somehow I think you are afraid of what the people of Wyoming would actually say – just so many other red states that put the decision to a vote of the people!
So, reducing the Supreme court will accomplish what? Everyone knew that the law was unconstitutional when it was passed……instead please spend time and resources drafting meaningful legislation that benefits all of Wyoming. Those legislators who continue to beat the drum are self serving, and they should remember that they are public servants working for the good of all, not just those that support their private agenda.
The courts have ruled and all have agreed the abortion ban law is unconstitutional in Wyoming.So why can’t our lawmakers whom made the law accept it? The judges are not liberal they read and determine the meaning of the law. In every case there is a winner and a loser you should be an adult and accept the rulings. When a child is born they have all the rights of every American citizen. Until then the women has her rights as she should.
Hmm….So, why would a Wyoming State politician let some some pesky irrelevant thing like a constitution or a Supreme Court stand in the way!? The President and his cronies don’t. After all, what’s a beloved leader for!
62 million children died as a result of self centric thinking morons, who claim their decision to medically or physically terminate the life of a living child is a right. The right to live is a constitutional right. The right to murder is NOT.
Then there is the specter of body parts…anyone consider that evil outcome for every child killed by dismemberment.
This Supreme Court is not so supreme. In fact, they are below grade.
Meanwhile, 14 million American children are food insecure. That’s moronic.
If the court was three justices instead of five, it would have still ruled the same. Instead of 4-1, they would have voted 2-1 or 3-0 depending on who they got rid of. How would this have made any difference? I feel that abortion is one of the most heinous crimes against children with certain exceptions, and am disappointed in the ruling, but changing the composition of the court because some of the legislature doesn’t like a ruling is ineffective and dumb.
I recall lesson # 3 from Little League: when you lose a game, you do not whine and blame the umpire.
“……alleging that the state’s process for selecting judges is shaped by “political insiders” and “left-wing institutional capture….”
Yeah right. Wyoming’s deep state. Please vote at the next election.
I read this article today, and thought it truly does represent the current situation in America. ” TRUMP HURLED A 2 WORD INSULT. IT REVEALED SOMETHING DEEPLY TROUBLING ABOUT HIM- AND OUR COUNTRY. By Jennifer Friedman MD.
This is a very disturbing story, for many reasons. Not only is it disturbing, but perhaps is a sneak preview of bad behavior by legislators during the upcoming legislative session. This situation warrants watching.
They didn’t get their way. So they stomp their little feet and try to “fix” the odds. They just need to get over themselves. I hope that the votes remember this fiasco.
I agree that these folks are like 5 year olds. When they do NOT get their way, they just want to manipulate the system to suit themselves. WRONG!!!
This legislature wants “a dramatic change to the composition of the state’s highest court? Because they disagree with that court’s decision to uphold the state constitution?
The legislature should recall the Wyoming citizens voted overwhelmingly for a constitutional amendment that protects our right to make our own health care decisions.
Anyone who claims pregnancy is not a health care concern is either ignorant w lying.
Renee: Thank you for your post. You state in part: Anyone who claims pregnancy is not a health care concern is either ignorant w lying. The “w” confuses things a bit, but I think you meant ignorant “or” lying. I would only add – either ignorant or lying or a man or perhaps all three.
It never seems to bother the free dumb people that what they want is unconstitutional; therefore “seeking legal counsel” sounds like a BS excuse for hiding what they are up to.
Typical REPO response. If you don’t like the outcome, change the rules. Vote these fake christian goofs out of office.
This response is right out of the tRump playbook.
Obviously, this issue is one of the most divisive in the country.
The Court overturning law was based on “healthcare” decisions.
When discussing healthcare what is quoted so very often?
“Do no harm”
An abortion literally tears a human being apart.
How in the world can abortion be considered “healthcare” with the so often referenced “Do no harm” pretext???
If you truly want to know the answer to your question, Chad, you’ll find it here: https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/abortion-is-healthcare
Vanessa, I would argue the “Dr.s” at the link you provided do not recognize the Hippocratic oath. Abortion ABSOLUTELY does harm to the unborn human being.
What’s more disturbing maybe, are OB/Gyns that practice prenatal care for expectant mothers and their unborn children that also perform abortions. They literally care for an unborn child or end it’s life depending on whether it is wanted or not in most cases.
I cant comprehend how anyone could look at the unborn with complete indifference like that.
Chad, the politicization of pregnancy leads to exaggeration and inaccurate language. For example, abortion opponents consistently use the term “baby” or “unborn child” regardless of the progression of the pregnancy, in order to bring to mind the image of a cute baby and create an emotional response in the listener. I realize you have never had a miscarriage. Many, maybe most, moms have had one or more miscarriages, usually occurring early in a pregnancy, when for unknown reasons, it just doesn’t work out. The medical name for a miscarriage is spontaneous abortion. Anyone who has had an early miscarriage and has also given birth to a full term baby knows there is a long and energy-intensive process involved with an embryo growing into a fetus and finally developing into a full term baby capable of breathing and living outside the uterus. An acorn is not an oak tree. A pupa is not a butterfly. Pregnancy is complicated, and many things can go wrong at any stage. Obstetricians are experts in pregnancy and childbirth, and they are also required to provide all relevant information to their patients, and to respect their patients’ belief systems, needs, and desires while helping them work through whatever situation arises. One thing that is not complicated; government has no place in pregnancy. Pregnancy is a private matter, not political.
Thank you! So tired of embryos being referred to as babies and children!
Trying to reply again, as my comments dont get always get posted like everyone elses.
This is an issue of Human Rights.
That “fetus/embryo/clump of cells” is still a Human Being.
A developing human being that cannot speak, a completely separate individual human being that is not some body part of the mother.
Human beings incapable of speaking for themselves still have the same rights all of us have most importantly the right to life.
Lisa, the problem pro-abortion people have is admitting that what is developing inside a woman’s uterus is a living Human Being.
So you agree that when there’s a complication that threatens the life of the mother, abortion is healthcare?
This is a facile argument. Do you not consider chemotherapy healthcare because it involves injecting the patient with poison?