A group of more than 100 Wyoming lawyers and retired judges this week urged the state’s congressional delegation to condemn escalating attacks on the judicial branch and its independence by President Donald Trump and his allies.

Writing in an open letter delivered Wednesday to the delegation, the legal professionals cited a chorus of criticism and threats against judges and judicial authority that’s crescendoed through the first two months of the Trump administration, as the president has sought to assert more power over the federal government while dramatically remaking federal agencies through cuts and layoffs. 

Specifically, the letter cited Trump’s calls to impeach a judge he deemed a “Radical Left Lunatic,” billionaire Elon Musk’s repeated use of his social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter) to attack court rulings he’s called “evil” and “an attempted coup,” and social media users who’ve even called for judges to be beheaded or hanged.

“The judiciary lacks the Executive’s bully pulpit or the Legislature’s power to defend itself. It does not have its own social media platform. Judges are not permitted to publicly discuss their decisions. The Judicial Branch must therefore rely on the other branches of government to respect and defend its constitutional role,” states the letter, which was addressed to Sens. John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis and Rep. Harriet Hageman. “We do not see that happening. 

“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.”

Attacks on the judiciary haven’t been limited to public statements and social media posts, the signees wrote. They noted that some Republicans in the House of Representatives have filed articles of impeachment against federal judges. As of earlier this week, GOP lawmakers had pursued impeachment against six judges who’d ruled against the Trump administration in court, according to a count by Reuters.

Those and other threats, the signers went on to write, are part of an effort not to discredit judges alone, but the rule of law.

“We understand there is an appetite among sizeable members of the electorate for radical change at any cost, but the growing reckless disdain for the independence and security of our judiciary must be resisted by anyone sworn to uphold our Constitution,” the letter reads. “That includes us, and it certainly includes you. Silence in the face of such threats from those with a duty to uphold the Constitution will be properly seen as complicity.”

The letter signees include 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. 

The letter signers hope the delegation will be “allies” in upholding the constitutional structure central to the nation’s democracy, retired state district judge Tim Day told WyoFile.

“We really hope that our congressional delegation will do the same, and that they won’t sit on their hands, and they will identify these as dangerous actions and dangerous words.” 

Motivations for signing 

The letter is not political, and it aims to ensure the courts remain independent of political influence, Day said. Undermining the independence of the judiciary, disregarding legal decisions and not defending the separation of powers paves the way for oppression, he warned.

The U.S. Constitution anticipated such threats, he noted. 

“It’s exactly the kind of thing that our founding fathers put in the first three articles of the Constitution because of what happened with the colonies with England,” Day said. “They were oppressed. So they didn’t want that to happen again.

“We’re asking our congressional delegation, two of whom are lawyers, to acknowledge that these are basic foundational tenants in our Constitution, critical to our democracy and the proper functioning of our government, with separation of powers and checks and balances.” 

Sullivan, a lawyer who served two terms as Wyoming’s governor, also hopes the delegation will “recognize the need to step up and respond.” He said his decision to sign the letter reflects “a concern about the administration’s policy on the rule of law and judges and lawyers and matters associated with the rule of law, and I thought it reflected well upon the concerns, and was happy to sign it.”

After Trump called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg for issuing an order that sought to halt deportation flights, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public statement. In it, Roberts stressed that two centuries of precedent have established that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” That proper response, he added, was the normal appellate process.

American governance, as envisioned by the country’s founders, relies on respecting the judiciary as being just as critical to a healthy democracy as the other two branches of government, explained Kite, who served on the Wyoming Supreme Court for 15 years, including four as chief justice.

If you undo the Constitution just to get things done, you no longer have a free and open democratic society, she said. 

“The rule of law isn’t what you want it to be,” Kite said. “It is what is established in the laws, and the laws are interpreted by the courts, and that’s been the case for 250 years.”

When asked about his motivations for signing the letter, Kite’s former colleague on the state’s high court, Michael Golden, recalled his decades practicing law, including four years in the Judge Advocate General’s Office and another 24 on the Wyoming Supreme Court. Golden said he believed strongly in the state and federal constitutions, along with the rule of law, and was alarmed by actions now taking place in Washington.

“If we lose respect [for] our courts, if we lose sight of the rule of law and our Constitution, then that will be what destroys our country,” he told WyoFile. “And that just speaks to the very heart of what we’re concerned about.”

Retired state district judge Peter Arnold was more blunt about his motivations for speaking out — and whether it will influence Wyoming’s congressional delegation.

“I signed the letter about which you contacted me because I strongly disagree that it is proper to speak about judges the way Trump is,” he wrote in an email to WyoFile. “I am not naive, I understand the pressures faced by our legislators and doubt the letter will do much good but I would be remiss if I didn’t express my beliefs publicly to our legislators.

“In my mind, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to publicly disagree with Trump,” wrote Arnold, a Republican who served on the Laramie County GOP General Committee and who was censured by the panel for raising the same issues. “Again, it is naive for me to expect much but to do nothing is not an option.”

Congressional delegation

WyoFile emailed questions about the letter to Barrasso, Lummis and Hageman early Wednesday evening. As of publication time Thursday afternoon, none had responded.

But in previous comments, speeches and letters, the lawmakers gave some insight into their views on the recent attacks on judges. 

On Feb. 10, for example, the delegation held a tele-town hall and were asked about what Republicans could do to stop Democrats and judges from blocking parts of Trump’s agenda.

Hageman, a lawyer herself, accused judges of “clearly acting politically” and suggested the administration expedite appeals or even outright ignore judges.

“When you have a judge who issues the decision saying that the Secretary of the Treasury is not allowed to access the documents of the Treasury, you’ve got a rogue judge,” Hageman said. “And I think that you may see the House moving forward with some ideas of what we’re going to do in that regard.

“One of the things that I think is going to happen, and what this administration needs to do, is really work to expedite the appeals on these absolutely outrageous decisions. It’s another form of lawfare, and it is just another example of how our system was broken with these rogue judges that have been appointed by Obama and Biden especially. They’re gonna have to go through the process. I wish I had a different answer for you. 

“I will tell you one thing that I’d like to consider, if I was the Secretary of Treasury … I might just say, ‘This is my agency. My responsibility is to take care of these records. I absolutely have to have access to them,’ and dare the judge to hold him in contempt. That’s what I might consider.”

Hageman went on to say that such a step — disobeying a judge and daring them to hold a person in contempt — is not something she’d normally recommend. But she went on to suggest there were times when it would be necessary to do just that.

“And I just, I think at some point you got to tell these judges, ‘You really do not have the power that you think that you do. You want to hold me in contempt of court, have at it, baby.’”

More recently, Barrasso took aim at “activist district court judges” in a speech earlier this month from the Senate floor. He accused those judges of “protecting criminals, terrorists and corrupt bureaucrats from the accountability that voters demand.”

“Let me be clear. When partisan, unelected district court judges try to micromanage the president of the United States, it isn’t judicial review,” he said. “It isn’t checks and balances. It is purely partisan politics — and it is wrong. Radical district judges will not succeed in blocking Republicans from getting America back on track.”

Lummis has been publicly supportive of many of Trump’s efforts to downsize the federal government. On Wednesday, Trump endorsed her for reelection.

WyoFile editors Tennessee Watson and Rebecca Huntington, along with writer CJ Baker, contributed to this report. 

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) laid into Wyoming’s accelerating plans to issue its own stablecoin Thursday, issuing a rare rebuke of a fellow Republican crypto initiative. 

“I respect the vote of the Wyoming people, however, I personally am vehemently against any government issuing a tokenized version of its currency,” Emmer told Decrypt. “At the federal level, this would be considered a central bank digital currency.”

Central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs—digital versions of a state’s fiat currency—have in recent years become a favored boogeyman of Republican politicians. GOP governors and President Donald Trump alike have worked to ban the development of CBDCs in the United States, given their perceived threat to user privacy. Many Republicans have taken to dubbing CBDCs as “Big Brother’s digital dollar.”

That’s because central bank digital currencies, unlike cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum, are managed by a central issuer that could have the ability to freeze funds or otherwise control how these currencies are spent. And while lacking the censorship-resistance of Bitcoin, CBDCs come with all the transparency: Every transaction made with a “digital dollar,” for instance, would be available to the central issuer for scrutiny.

And yet, on Wednesday, Wyoming’s Republican governor, Mark Gordon, announced that his state is planning to issue a cryptocurrency as soon as July: its long-planned stablecoin, WYST. 

Those involved with the project insist that the stablecoin, even if it is issued by the Wyoming government, is nothing like a CBDC. Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies generally pegged to the price of the U.S. dollar, which allow users to trade in and out of crypto without exiting digital assets completely. They also serve as dollar equivalents in markets where dollars are restricted.

Anthony Apollo, executive director of Wyoming’s Stable Token Commission, maintained Thursday that even though he too is opposed to the notion of a state-backed CBDC, WYST is an entirely different type of product.

“Wyoming cares significantly about privacy,” Apollo told Decrypt. “We’re going to have rules in place about what we can and can’t collect, how we can treat that data, and how we can act on that data.”

The director added that the exact nature of such policies is still being ironed out internally. Wyoming’s government is also weighing relying on a third party like a centralized crypto exchange to handle data collection for WYST.

One of the chief criticisms levied against government issued tokens, though, is that whatever rules one administration makes about them, could always be changed by future ones.

Apollo went on to argue that unlike CBDCs, which are digitally issued by a central bank the same way cash is created, Wyoming’s stablecoin will be fully backed by reserves like U.S. Treasuries, and so does not pose inflationary risk.

“Wyoming is not a central bank,” Apollo said. “We are not issuing any cash.”

But why is a solidly red state attempting to issue any form of government-backed digital asset?

Backstage at the DC Blockchain Summit on Wednesday, Gov. Mark Gordon and Apollo made the case that a public stablecoin could offer key benefits private issuers—such as Circle, the issuer of USDC—would balk at, including lower fees and flexibility on touchier transactions like firearms purchases. Interest accrued from the token’s Treasury reserves would also fund the state’s school system.

But the token’s rollout has certainly brought with it questions about the role of government in issuing such a product. Apollo said it’s fairly common for him to have to field questions about whether WYST is a CBDC or not at public hearings and even in conversations with state legislators.

The topic is currently front of mind in Wyoming. Just weeks ago, Gordon signed a bill into law prohibiting the development of a CBDC in the state. The bill’s sponsor said a key purpose of the legislation was “to send a clear message to Congress: that Wyoming rejects the idea of essentially controlled digital currency.”

MORGAN COUNTY, Colo. (KKTV) – A wanted fugitive out of Wyoming is in custody in Colorado after a month-long, multi-state manhunt.

The U.S. Marshals Service said 25-year-old Tyger Rodriguez was arrested on Wednesday in rural Morgan County.

Officials said he was wanted for two counts of felony aggravated assault and battery stemming from incidents that happened in mid-February.

The arrest warrants were issued on Feb. 19 and 20, and officials

After developing information that Rodriguez had fled Wyoming and was possibly hiding in rural northeast Colorado, the U.S. Marshals Service was contacted and joined the investigation.

Investigators tracked him to a rural property about four miles west of Fort Morgan.

“We are incredibly grateful to all of our law enforcement partners whose dedication and cooperation made this arrest possible,” Morgan County Sheriff Dave Martin said. “We also extend our sincere thanks to the local businesses and citizens who offered their assistance throughout the investigation and today’s operation.”

Copyright 2025 KKTV. All rights reserved.