The Wyoming Supreme Court has ruled that the state's 2023 abortion prohibition laws violate the Wyoming Constitution, striking down both a general abortion ban and restrictions on medication abortion. The decision in *State v. Johnson* (2026 WY 1) was issued Jan. 6, 2026.
The court held that Wyoming's abortion restrictions unjustifiably limit a woman's state constitutional right to make her own health care decisions, according to a summary released by the Wyoming Supreme Court.
The ruling centers on Article 1, Section 38 of the Wyoming Constitution, which states that "Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions." Wyoming voters passed this constitutional amendment in 2012, initially as a response to the federal Affordable Care Act.
The case stems from 2023 legislation passed by the Wyoming Legislature following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision in *Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization*, which overruled *Roe v. Wade* and left authority to regulate abortion to individual states.
The Wyoming Legislature passed two laws targeting abortion access. The Life is a Human Right Act prohibits people from performing abortions in Wyoming, with certain exceptions. A second law makes it illegal "to prescribe, dispense, distribute, sell or use any drug for the purpose of procuring or performing an abortion on any person," also containing certain exceptions.
Immediately after these laws took effect in 2023, a coalition of plaintiffs sued the state and those responsible for enforcing the laws. The plaintiffs included medical professionals, two nonprofit corporations, and an individual woman who challenged the constitutionality of both statutes.
The plaintiffs asked the courts to rule that both laws violate the Wyoming Constitution. After reviewing evidence and hearing arguments from both sides, the trial court concluded the laws violate the Wyoming Constitution and enjoined the state from enforcing them.
The state appealed that decision to the Wyoming Supreme Court, which has final authority on interpreting the Wyoming Constitution. The high court did not rely on the trial court's decision but conducted its own constitutional analysis.
The Wyoming Supreme Court focused on a single constitutional question: whether the Wyoming laws restricting abortions unjustifiably limit a woman's state constitutional right to make her own health care decisions.
The court's analysis centered on the 2012 constitutional amendment that established healthcare decision-making rights for Wyoming adults. This amendment was originally intended as a response to federal healthcare mandates under the Affordable Care Act, but the court applied its broad language to reproductive healthcare decisions.
The decision represents a significant development in post-*Dobbs* litigation, where state courts have increasingly been called upon to interpret their own constitutions' protections for reproductive rights. While *Dobbs* eliminated federal constitutional protection for abortion access, it left open the possibility that state constitutions could provide such protections.
Wyoming joins several other states where courts have found state constitutional protections for abortion rights even after *Dobbs*. The ruling demonstrates how state constitutional provisions originally enacted for other purposes can take on new significance in the abortion context.
The case involves multiple defendants including the State of Wyoming, Governor Mark Gordon, and Attorney General Bridget Hill. The plaintiffs include Danielle Johnson, Kathleen Dow, physicians Giovannina Anthony and Rene R. Hinkle, Chelsea's Fund, and Circle of Hope Healthcare doing business as Wellspring Health Access.
The Wyoming Supreme Court's summary emphasizes that it "does not modify, supplement, or change the content of the Court's opinion, or that of the specially concurring and dissenting opinions, and it should not be cited or relied on as legal precedent." This suggests the court issued both majority and dissenting opinions in the case.
The decision comes as Wyoming and other states continue grappling with the aftermath of *Dobbs*, which returned abortion regulation authority to state governments. Some states have enacted broad abortion bans while others have moved to protect abortion access.
For Wyoming, a traditionally conservative state, the ruling represents an unexpected check on legislative efforts to restrict abortion access. The decision turns on the state's own constitutional language rather than federal precedent, making it harder for the state to appeal to federal courts.
The ruling affects both surgical and medication abortion access in Wyoming. The medication abortion law targeted drugs used for abortion procedures, reflecting a broader national trend of states attempting to restrict access to abortion pills.
The case highlights the ongoing legal battles over abortion access in post-*Dobbs* America, where state courts and constitutions have become the primary battlegrounds for reproductive rights. The Wyoming decision adds to a growing body of state court rulings interpreting constitutional healthcare rights in the abortion context.
The full implications of the ruling will depend on whether the state seeks further review and how lower courts implement the decision. For now, the Wyoming Supreme Court's ruling removes the state's abortion restrictions and restores access under state constitutional protection.