Wyoming’s governor and attorney general have made an urgent appeal to the state’s supreme court, urging them to revisit their decision that upholds abortion rights under the state constitution. The officials argue that the court altered its procedural rules without notifying them, a move they believe warrants a reconsideration.

On January 6, Governor Mark Gordon publicly requested that Wyoming Attorney General Keith Kautz file a petition for a rehearing regarding this contentious abortion ruling. True to his word, the petition was submitted to the court on Tuesday. Governor Gordon voiced his significant discontent with the court’s decision, which traces the state’s historical stance on the issue back to 2012.

As laid out in the court’s comprehensive 70-page opinion, Wyoming voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2012 granting adults the autonomy to make their own health care decisions. This amendment was initially intended as a countermeasure to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, and allowed the legislature to impose necessary restrictions to safeguard public health and welfare, while also protecting these rights from excessive governmental interference.

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Wyoming lawmakers enacted the Life is a Human Right Act in 2023, which banned most abortions with limited exceptions and prohibited the use of drugs related to abortion. This legislation was promptly challenged in court by a coalition of medical professionals, two nonprofit organizations, and an individual, who contended that these laws infringe upon the state constitution.

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, prompting an appeal from the state that brought the matter before the Wyoming Supreme Court. During their deliberations, the justices homed in on a crucial question: Do the Wyoming abortion restrictions unjustly impinge on a woman’s constitutional right to make her own health care decisions? The court found that they do, affirming unanimously that the choice to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a decision that resides solely with the woman.

While considering the case, the state’s high court said it focused on a single issue: “Do the Wyoming laws restricting abortions unjustifiably limit a woman’s state constitutional right to make her own health care decisions?” They determined that they indeed do, stating “all five Wyoming Supreme Court justices agreed that the decision whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a woman’s own health care decision.”

Gordon, however, argued that the “profoundly unfortunate” ruling “only serves to prolong the ultimate and proper resolution of this issue.”

“This ruling may settle, for now, a legal question, but it does not settle the moral one, nor does it reflect where many Wyoming citizens stand, including myself,” he wrote, also on Jan. 6. Gordon then indicated his intention for citizens to vote on a constitutional amendment concerning abortion this fall that “would trump any and all judicial decisions.”

Before then, though, if Gordon and Kautz — himself a former state supreme court justice — get their way, the Wyoming justices will reconsider their ruling, which the attorney general’s office suggested contained “a number of legal errors.”

As Cowboy State Daily reported, the state’s chief attorney contends that the justices ignored precedent and approached the case in a manner more favorable to the plaintiffs. As Wyoming Special Assistant Attorney General Jay Jerde, who wrote the filing, puts it, the high court moved away from the established standard — under which the plaintiffs would need to show that there is “no set of circumstances” in which the abortion laws could be constitutional — and instead determined that the plaintiffs only needed to show that the laws are unconstitutional as to the state’s interaction with them.

The attorney general’s office maintains that the high court “changed the legal rules governing this case after the parties had presented briefing and argument under a different set of rules.” In doing so, the justices “deprived this Court of vigorous adversarial argument on the issue.”

Jerde also argues that the Wyoming Supreme Court contradicted itself, suggesting one justice just “apparently changed her mind” from a previous case.

As the state news source notes, the Wyoming Supreme Court does not need to grant the request for a rehearing.

As it stands, abortion is legal throughout pregnancy in Wyoming.