Wyoming
Called on to defend the rule of law, Wyoming’s delegation says judges, not Trump, are the problem – WyoFile
The judiciary holds too much power and Congress should curb its authority, Wyoming’s federal delegation argued in response to Equality State lawyers and retired judges who called on them to defend “American Rule of Law” from attacks by President Donald Trump and his billionaire ally Elon Musk.
In an April 11 letter, Rep. Harriet Hageman and Sens. John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis said the federal judiciary has drawn scrutiny on itself. “Unelected judges imposing their policy biases on our nation without democratic legitimacy are the root cause of today’s controversy,” they wrote.
The politicians largely sidestepped the central tenet of an open letter signed by more than 100 Wyoming lawyers and retired judges and published late last month. That letter had called on Hageman, Barrasso and Lummis to condemn an increase in personal attacks and calls for impeachment led by the president and his allies on federal judges who issue court decisions they dislike.
The Wyoming jurists who signed that missive focused on Trump’s calls to impeach specific judges who ruled against his policies, and social media posts by Musk calling a judge’s ruling an “attempted coup,” among other criticisms.
The letter also cited threats of violence against judges, a phenomenon U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has said is on the rise. It also noted Trump’s efforts to target law firms he doesn’t like. “These attacks are part of a growing effort to discredit, not just judges, but seemingly the American Rule of Law,” the letter stated.
The delegation’s response does not mention the president, Musk or threats of violence against judges.
Instead, Barrasso, Lummis and Hageman wrote that “the country is witnessing a healthy debate right now about the appropriate role of judges,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by WyoFile. The federal lawmakers also cited legislation they were cosponsoring to eliminate judges’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions on actions by the federal government.
“I think the delegation sort of missed the point,” former Wyoming governor and longtime attorney Mike Sullivan told WyoFile on Monday. “This was not a partisan effort. This is a legitimate, serious and what I think is a constitutional concern about the judiciary and the rule of law.”
Last week, House Republicans including Hageman passed the No Rogue Rulings Act, which would curb judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions. Republican lawmakers did so in response to a series of court rulings against aspects of Trump’s agenda — particularly elements of his mass deportation effort that judges found could violate peoples’ civil rights, and parts of the Musk-driven effort to cut budgets and staffing levels across the federal government. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has introduced a similar measure in the Senate.
“Both the legislative and the executive branches are rightfully using their constitutional checks and balances to address judicial overreach,” Hageman, Barrasso and Lummis wrote in their letter.
In their letter, the Wyoming jurists told Lummis, Barrasso and Hageman the U.S. Constitution called on them to defend the judiciary from attacks, even if those attacks come from other branches of government.
“As our elected federal representatives—and as required by your own oaths—we thus urge you to publicly condemn these threats, affirm judicial independence, and remind Americans that appeals—not violence, intimidation, or invitations to lawlessness—are the constitutional remedy for undesired court decisions,” the letter read.
Though the delegation in its letter described a bipartisan drive for judicial reform, the No Rogue Rulings Act did not draw any support from Democrats in the House and will likely die in the Senate, where it won’t be able to garner 60 votes, according to a report in Politico.
Lummis, Barrasso and Hageman expressed pique at the letter authors’ choice of an open letter. Among the letter’s more noted signees were former Gov. Mike Sullivan; retired Wyoming Supreme Court Chief Justices Marilyn Kite, Michael Golden, Michael Davis and E. James Burke; retired U.S. District Court Chief Judge William Downes and former Wyoming Attorneys General Gay Woodhouse and Patrick Crank.
(WyoFile board member Susan Stubson also signed on. She was not involved in the production of this report, and neither she nor any member of the WyoFile board have authority to direct news coverage or news content.)
Many of those attorneys are retired from public office and working in private practice, if not retired entirely. The jurists appear to have sought a public discussion, concluding their letter with: “We welcome your earliest public response to these very serious concerns.”
But the federal delegates said the more than 100 signees should have reached out as individuals.
“We are disappointed you failed to express your concerns with us directly before rushing to publish your letter,” they wrote. “A robust discussion about addressing the challenges and concerns facing our nation would be more beneficial than attempting to score political points through the press.”
WyoFile reached out to signees of the original letter but did not receive a comment on the delegation’s response by early Monday afternoon. This story will be updated if that changes.
Sullivan noted that the Wyoming attorneys published their letter in the wake of a highly unusual statement by Chief Justice Roberts, who protested Trump’s call for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg. Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment after the judge issued a ruling momentarily halting one of Trump’s most controversial deportation policies. Judges are not politicians, Sullivan said, “and when they come down in a way that doesn’t agree with your position they shouldn’t be demeaned or defamed or threatened with impeachment.”
Those signing the letter have an obligation to maintain judicial independence, as does the delegation, the former governor said.
“This is a group that believes this ought to be a public discussion,” Sullivan said. “We have our own constitutional obligations as members of the bar, practicing before the judiciary, and we shouldn’t just sit back and let this happen.
Monique Merrill
(CN) — A federal judge in Montana must determine whether or not to split up two cases challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s reduction of protections to the greater sage grouse across millions of acres in the West and transfer the claims to Wyoming.
Seven conservation groups — the Center for Biological Diversity, Gallatin Wildlife Association, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Rocky Mountain Wild, the Sierra Club, the Western Watersheds Project and WildEarth Guardians — sued the agency in March, challenging its approval of resource management plan amendments for greater sage grouse across nine Western states spanning from California to North Dakota.
Later that month, another three conservation groups — The Montana Wildlife Federation, the Wilderness Society and Defenders of Wildlife — also sued the agency, challenging specifically the Wyoming and Montana plan amendments.
In both cases, the plaintiffs accuse the Bureau of Land Management of weakening prior protections for sage grouse habitat by removing key restrictions and expanding oil and gas leasing. The bird is considered threatened, with populations in sharp decline due primarily to habitat loss.
Both cases were filed in Montana federal court and have not been consolidated, and on Monday, the state of Wyoming argued they should be dismissed or at least severed and have the case transferred to Wyoming.
“Wyoming is a sage grouse stronghold,” Ethan Paddison of the Wyoming Attorney General’s Office argued. “The group’s challenge to the 2025 Wyoming [Resource Management Plan Amendment] strikes at the heart of this longstanding cooperative conservation framework between the state of Wyoming and the federal government.”
According to Wyoming, its resource management plan is different than the other states because it took account of different underlying facts and local plans in its development.
But U.S. District Judge Brian Morris, a Barack Obama appointee, noted his concern at severing the cases in the event that the courts return conflicting decisions. Wyoming appeals go to the Tenth Circuit and Montana appeals go to the Ninth Circuit.
Wyoming argued there was more tying the cases to Wyoming than any other venue.
“The state has spent close to three decades and upwards of $100 million developing and implementing the sage grouse core area strategy,” Paddison said.
The federal government agreed and asked the court to move all claims raised by the seven conservation group plaintiffs to the District of Wyoming.
“What we’re asking here is to do something different, to keep the case together, but to put it in a place, at least one of these places, where there’s a higher concentration of sage grouse habitat,” Justice Department attorney Luther Hajek said.
Wyoming has 24% of Bureau of Land Management-managed surface lands designated as sage grouse habitats, roughly 17 million acres.
Michael Freeman, Earthjustice attorney representing the trio of conservation groups, implored the court to consider the case as a continuation of a recently decided sage grouse case in which Morris tossed oil leases on sage grouse habitat.
“Rather than conserving sage grouse by complying with prioritization, BLM has responded to this court’s decisions by attempting to just eliminate prioritization from its plans altogether,” Freeman said. “And just as this court found in the leasing litigation that national decisions need to be properly adjudicated together in a single court, and this court represents a proper venue for doing so.”
Transferring the case to Wyoming would reward a “rush to courthouse,” Freeman argued. Plus, it would be inefficient to have two courts deciding the same issues based on essentially the same administrative record, he said.
Morris questioned why there were even two lawsuits to begin with.
Freeman clarified that the trio of conservation groups are focused specifically on oil and gas prioritization issues, though admitted there were overlapping issues.
Andrew Missel, attorney with Advocates For The West representing the larger coalition of conservation groups, agreed with Freeman.
“I think transferring part or all of this case to Wyoming would not be in the interest of justice because it would effectively reward what I think is a pretty naked display of gamesmanship,” Missel said.
Morris again questioned why both sets of conservation groups filed separate suits.
“And you just happened to file both in the District of Montana,” Morris said.
Wyoming and the Western Energy Alliance filed suit against the Department of Interior in the District of Wyoming, seeking a declaration from the court that the state’s amended plan complies with the law. Missel characterized the suit as a sham.
Wyoming argued the lawsuit is further reason why Morris should move the claims to Wyoming, so the Montana court doesn’t run the risk of issuing a conflicting judgment with the Wyoming court.
Morris said he would return an order in the next couple of weeks.
GILLETTE, Wyo. — As the Aug. 18 primary election approaches, County 17 is introducing candidate questionnaires to help voters make informed decisions at the ballot box.
Every candidate in the primary field was sent the same three questions and given a limit of 500 words, which could be distributed among their answers as they saw fit. To ensure a fair and direct line to the community, all responses are published exactly as submitted, without edits or alterations.
Candidates were asked:
- What are the most crucial challenges your constituents are facing?
- If elected, how will you address these challenges?
- What qualities or qualifications do you possess that have prepared you to meet these challenges?
Questionnaires are being published on a rolling basis online through Aug. 11. They will be accessible via the County 17 Election Tracker.
Qwenton Eagle Oviatt (R), Wyoming secretary of state
What are the most crucial challenges your constituents are facing?
The most crucial challenges my constituents are facing are low voter turnout, outdated election processes that make voting harder than necessary, a business registration system being exploited by scammers, and a wide fracture within the Wyoming Republican Party.
If elected, how will you address these challenges?
If elected, I will address these directly. I will push for a long overdue election cleanup bill to make voting easier while ensuring strong security. I will implement top tier screening software and a small enforcement team to stop fraud using commercial registered agents. I will also work closely with county clerks to give them the training and uniformity they’ve requested. On party division, I will focus on repairing our Republican Party by practicing Alan Simpson’s collaboration and Mike Enzi’s 80/20 rule, bringing people together instead of tearing them apart.
What qualities/qualifications do you possess that have prepared you to meet these challenges?
What prepares me for these challenges is my diverse real world experience. I have worked in Wyoming’s oil fields, supported National Science Foundation research in Antarctica, built small businesses, and currently serve as an academic advisor at Central Wyoming College. As a certified mediator, I’ve learned how to bring people together to solve problems. This practical background gives me the judgement and skills needed to deliver real results for Wyoming.
Related
-
San Diego, CA1 minute agoSerial sex abuser sentenced to over 300 years for crimes against young relatives
-
Milwaukee, WI4 minutes ago13 Things to Do in Milwaukee This Weekend: July 9-12
-
Atlanta, GA9 minutes agoAtlanta City Council member proposes citywide heat safety plan as temperatures climb
-
Minneapolis, MN16 minutes agoI-394 traffic shift between Minneapolis and St. Louis Park starts on Wednesday
-
Indianapolis, IN19 minutes agoIndiana officials call for action after 2 children die in retention ponds
-
Pittsburg, PA24 minutes agoFayette County man facing 1,000+ charges related to animal cruelty, neglect
-
Augusta, GA31 minutes agoTextron plans split that could spin off Augusta’s E‑Z‑GO | Exclusive
-
Washington, D.C34 minutes agoDC is second riskiest city for driving, Allstate says
