In Rodriguez-Williams v. Johnson, decided February 2, 2024, the Wyoming Supreme Court unanimously ruled that two state legislators who sponsored Wyoming’s 2023 abortion bans, together with the nonprofit Right to Life of Wyoming, could not intervene as defendants in the lawsuit challenging those laws.1State Court Report. Rodriguez-Williams v. Johnson, 542 P.3d 632 Chief Justice Kate M. Fox, writing for the court, held that sponsoring or advocating for a statute does not give anyone a legally protectable interest in defending it once it is enacted; that job belongs to the state.
Who Tried to Intervene and Why
After plaintiffs including healthcare providers, individual women, and reproductive health nonprofits sued in Teton County District Court to block the Life is a Human Right Act (House Bill 152) and a companion ban on medication abortion (Senate File 109), the laws’ lead sponsors moved to join the case as defendants.2WyoFile. Wyoming Supreme Court: Anti-Abortion Lawmakers, Group Can’t Intervene in Lawsuit Over Bans Representative Rachel Rodriguez-Williams had sponsored the Life is a Human Right Act; Representative Chip Neiman had sponsored the medication abortion measure. They were joined by Right to Life of Wyoming and represented by Alliance Defending Freedom.
The proposed intervenors offered three reasons they needed in:
- As lead sponsors, Rodriguez-Williams and Neiman said they had a unique interest in defending the laws that went beyond the general public’s stake.
- They argued the Attorney General’s office was mounting a purely legal defense and declining to introduce factual evidence; they wanted to put on evidence and push for a trial rather than summary judgment.
- Right to Life of Wyoming argued that years of lobbying and spending to pass the laws gave it a protectable interest that would be destroyed if the statutes fell.
Judge Melissa Owens denied the motion at the district court level, and the proposed intervenors appealed.
Why the Court Rejected Intervention of Right
On intervention as of right, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that advocacy for legislation, no matter how substantial, does not translate into a legal interest in defending the resulting statute. Once a bill becomes law, the responsibility to defend it rests with the government, and the sponsor’s interest is no different in kind from any other citizen’s.3Wyoming News. Wyoming Supreme Court Prevents Right to Life, Wyoming Lawmakers From Joining Abortion Case
The court also noted that the Wyoming Legislature had never formally authorized Rodriguez-Williams or Neiman to represent the state’s interests in the litigation. That distinguished Wyoming’s situation from cases in other states where legislatures had granted individual lawmakers that authority by resolution or statute.4FindLaw. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams v. State of Wyoming
The court further distinguished federal environmental cases in which intervenors with concrete economic interests in natural resources or endangered species habitat have been permitted to join lawsuits. Rodriguez-Williams, Neiman, and Right to Life of Wyoming had no comparable tangible stake; their interest was ideological and political, not proprietary.4FindLaw. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams v. State of Wyoming
Why the Court Rejected Permissive Intervention
On permissive intervention, the court found the Attorney General’s office was already adequately defending the laws. The proposed intervenors’ answer, the justices observed, largely mirrored the state’s own response to the lawsuit.5vLex. Rodriguez-Williams v. Johnson Adding more parties would cause undue delay and invite what the opinion called “duplicative and cumulative argument.”2WyoFile. Wyoming Supreme Court: Anti-Abortion Lawmakers, Group Can’t Intervene in Lawsuit Over Bans
The court went further on the political dimension of the request, warning that allowing intervention based on shared policy preferences risked injecting political debate into a legal proceeding. “Courts are not forums for such debates,” the opinion stated.2WyoFile. Wyoming Supreme Court: Anti-Abortion Lawmakers, Group Can’t Intervene in Lawsuit Over Bans
What Happened to the Abortion Laws After the Intervention Ruling
With Rodriguez-Williams and the other proposed intervenors kept out of the case, the underlying lawsuit moved forward with the Attorney General defending the statutes alone. Judge Owens granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and permanently enjoined enforcement of both laws. The state appealed.
On January 6, 2026, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed and declared both the Life is a Human Right Act and the medication abortion ban unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 38 of the Wyoming Constitution, the healthcare decision-making provision voters approved in 2012.6FindLaw. State v. Johnson The court held that the decision to end a pregnancy is a healthcare decision protected by Section 38, that the right is fundamental, and that the restrictions failed strict scrutiny because they were not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.7State Court Report. Johnson v. Wyoming The state is now barred from enforcing either statute.8American Bar Association. Wyoming Abortion Ban Unconstitutional
The intervention ruling, though procedurally narrow, drew a firm line that outlasted the laws themselves: in Wyoming, defending a statute in court is the executive branch’s job, and a lawmaker’s authorship of the bill does not change that.