Wyoming Lawmakers Push Back on Judicial Criticism, Call for Limits on Judges’ Powers

Wyoming’s congressional delegation has rejected calls to defend the federal judiciary from political attacks, instead arguing that judges themselves are at the center of the problem and that Congress should rein in their authority, Oil City News reports.

In a joint response dated April 11, US Rep. Harriet Hageman and Senators John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis wrote that unelected judges have overstepped their roles by allowing personal bias to influence legal decisions.

“Unelected judges imposing their policy biases on our nation without democratic legitimacy are the root cause of today’s controversy,” the lawmakers stated.

Their comments came in response to an open letter signed by over 100 Wyoming attorneys and retired judges, urging the delegation to speak out against escalating political attacks on the judiciary. The jurists’ letter specifically criticized former President Donald Trump and tech billionaire Elon Musk for targeting judges who issued rulings they opposed. The letter highlighted threats of violence, calls for impeachment, and public accusations, such as Musk referring to a judge’s ruling as an “attempted coup.”

The legal professionals warned that these attacks are eroding respect for the rule of law.

“These attacks are part of a growing effort to discredit, not just judges, but seemingly the American Rule of Law,” the letter read.

It called on the delegation to defend judicial independence and condemn threats or intimidation as unconstitutional responses to unfavorable rulings.

The response from the lawmakers did not directly address Trump, Musk, or the cited threats. Instead, they framed the issue as a broader debate over the role of the judiciary and pointed to legislation they support, such as the No Rogue Rulings Act, which would limit judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions. That bill passed the House along party lines and faces an uncertain future in the Senate.

“Both the legislative and the executive branches are rightfully using their constitutional checks and balances to address judicial overreach,” the delegation wrote.

Former Wyoming Governor Mike Sullivan, one of the letter’s signers, said the lawmakers had missed the broader point.

“This was not a partisan effort,” Sullivan told WyoFile. “This is a legitimate, serious, and what I think is a constitutional concern about the judiciary and the rule of law.”

Signatories of the original letter include several prominent legal figures from Wyoming’s past, such as former state Supreme Court justices and attorneys general. Their letter followed recent remarks by US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who condemned attacks on judicial independence, including Trump’s call to impeach a federal judge who blocked one of his immigration policies.

The Wyoming delegation criticized the jurists for publishing their concerns as an open letter, suggesting private outreach would have been more appropriate.

“We are disappointed you failed to express your concerns with us directly before rushing to publish your letter,” they wrote.

Despite the political divisions, Sullivan and others maintain that judicial independence is a nonpartisan issue deserving of public discourse.

“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.”