Wyoming’s Top Judge Warns Against Politicizing Courts in Wake of Abortion Ruling

Wyoming Supreme Court Chief Justice Lynne Boomgaarden delivered a direct and urgent plea to state lawmakers Monday, warning them against restructuring or punishing the judiciary in response to the court’s controversial January ruling that established abortion as a fundamental constitutional right.

In her annual State of the Judiciary address, Boomgaarden defended the court’s decision as a matter of legal duty, not politics. “We may not like the outcome the law demands,” she told legislators gathered in Cheyenne for the session’s opening day. “But we can sleep at night because we followed the oath we took to uphold the law. Including the United States and Wyoming Constitutions.”

Her appeal for judicial independence came as some legislators, particularly members of the conservative Wyoming Freedom Caucus, have proposed significant changes to the court system. These include reducing the Supreme Court from five justices to three and instituting a state Senate confirmation process for new justices—moves seen as direct reactions to the abortion ruling.

The chief justice’s speech was met with visible political division. Early in her remarks, Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams (R-Cody) walked out of the chamber. In a text to Cowboy State Daily, Rodriguez-Williams called the court’s decision “the greatest threat to democracy” and accused the judiciary of “legalizing from the bench a right to kill people carte blanche.”

Boomgaarden firmly defended Wyoming’s current merit-based judicial selection process, where a bipartisan commission recommends candidates to the governor. “This is the only way the system can guarantee every citizen who enters the courtroom will be treated the same,” she stated. “Subject to the same laws as their neighbor. Regardless of their politics… the politics in the governor’s office or the Wyoming Legislature.”

While her call for “mutual respect” drew applause from some lawmakers, others remained seated in silent protest. Rep. Joel Guggenmos (R-Riverton), who did not stand for the final ovation, wrote that he has “zero respect for judges who legislate from the bench.” He argued that the legislature, not “unelected judges,” should decide the state’s abortion policy following the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Boomgaarden concluded by urging lawmakers to pursue a constitutional amendment if they disagree with the court’s interpretation, rather than altering the structure of the courts themselves. “Healthy tension between branches of government is useful and expected,” she said. “Efforts to punish or politicize the courts are not.”