A political action committee affiliated with the Wyoming Freedom Caucus asked a Sweetwater County judge in October to dismiss a defamation case filed against the PAC this summer.
Now, the plaintiffs — Rock Springs Republican Reps. J.T. Larson and Cody Wylie — are urging the court to deny the PAC’s motion to dismiss.
“There is ample evidence that the WY Freedom PAC’s written communications were both false and defamatory,” the plaintiffs, represented by attorney and outgoing Rep. Clark Stith (R-Rock Springs), argued in their opposition filed Nov. 14.
Larson and Wylie filed the original complaint in July after the PAC sent text messages and mailers to voters equating a vote on a 2024 budget amendment to the two lawmakers voting to remove President-elect Donald Trump from the ballot. Such a vote has never occurred in the Wyoming Legislature.
In October, the two lawmakers filed an amended lawsuit to account for additional mailers the PAC sent after the initial complaint was filed and to try to strengthen their legal argument.
Larson and Wylie, who were both reelected, stand by their belief the PAC knew its statements were false. Because the Legislature has never held a vote to remove Trump from the ballot, the complaint asserts the PAC made statements contrary to the truth with actual malice, a legal standard in defamation cases involving public figures. The suit also alleged the statements caused harm to the reputations of the plaintiffs and harmed one of their private businesses.
The PAC, however, argued in its October motion to dismiss that the lawsuit fails to state a claim and the allegations do not constitute defamation. The PAC also said statements made to voters “were made in the course of political campaigning, where imaginative expressions and hyperbole are at their zenith.”
The plaintiffs take issue with this stance, contending the PAC “essentially argues that political speech is different, that false statements are not really false if they are part of political discourse.
“Although the standard of the defendant’s intent required (actual malice) is different for defamation of a public official than for a private individual (negligence), there is not a different measure of truth,” the plaintiffs wrote. “The court should reject Defendant’s attempt to create a ‘post-truth’ world of political discourse.”
How we got here
During the 2024 budget session, lawmakers clashed over which elected officials should have the authority to represent the state’s interest in litigation. That debate came after Secretary of State Chuck Gray joined Ohio’s and Missouri’s Republican secretaries of state in filing an amicus brief that advocated for overturning a Colorado court’s decision to remove Trump from that state’s ballot because of his role in inciting the Jan. 6, 2021 riots at the U.S. Capitol.
The Joint Appropriations Committee responded by adding a footnote to the budget limiting the secretary of state’s ability to sue on Wyoming’s behalf.
Some lawmakers argued on the House floor that the footnote was about separation of powers. More especially, the footnote ensured the state’s chief executive — the governor — remained the one office with the authority to speak on behalf of Wyoming in a courtroom.
While some members of the Freedom Caucus argued the secretary of state’s office needed the ability to act quickly, others said the budget wasn’t the place for such a footnote. Ultimately, it was left out of the final budget bill passed by both chambers.
Months later, the footnote became fodder for thousands of mailers targeting incumbent lawmakers, including Larson and Wylie but also others that lost their reelection bids, including Reps. Ember Oakley (R-Riverton) and Dan Zwonitzer (R-Cheyenne).
Thursday’s filings
The plaintiffs argue in their most recent filings that the timing of the mailers is telling.
The PAC “admits that the Wyoming Secretary of State had already filed amicus briefs with both the Colorado Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court in the case involving Trump’s right to appear on the Colorado ballot for president before plaintiffs cast their votes on a budget amendment that would first become effective on July 1, 2024,” the filing states.
When the PAC asked the court to dismiss the complaint, it also made an alternative suggestion that the court resolve the case in its favor without a full trial — an order also known as summary judgment.
But a summary judgment cannot be granted because the two parties do not agree on the material facts of the case, the plaintiffs argue.
More specifically, the plaintiffs point to the PAC’s assertion that “a claim that one voted in favor of excluding Trump from the presidential ballot is not capable of defamatory meaning.”
There is ample evidence, however, the plaintiffs contend. They also reiterate an argument from the amended complaint that support for the president-elect is so strong across the state “that whether one supports Trump has become a proxy for whether a person is a true Republican.” In the November election, Trump received 71.6% of the vote in Wyoming — stronger support than any other state.
The PAC now has an opportunity to respond to the plaintiffs once more before the court weighs in. Earlier this month, the PAC requested an oral hearing for early 2025.
The freedom caucus PAC seems to be spending n awful lot of the Wy. Republican party’s money for being untruthful & dishonest.
Sue the heck out of these self righteous misfits.
It’s tragic that voters are so easily manipulated, especially by negativity. May the light continue to shine on these dirty tricks and other lies through the courts and the rule of law.
That’s part of the legal perspective of the lawsuits – that they exaggerated false claims “knowing” that it would be believed…because MAGA believes everything spoon fed to them and questions nothing. Just like many GOP still believe that Project 2025 is not real and Trump knows nothing about it.