(Cheyenne, WY, 2026-01-07) —
The Wyoming Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a state law banning abortion pills, ruling it violates the state constitution’s guarantee of individual health care decisions.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled 4-1 against the state’s abortion pill ban.
- The court found the ban infringed on a woman’s right to make health decisions, as protected by the Wyoming Constitution.
- Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon expressed disappointment and indicated he will seek a constitutional amendment to address the issue.
The Wyoming Supreme Court invalidated a law prohibiting the prescription, dispensing, distribution, sale, or use of medication for abortion, deeming it unconstitutional. The ruling represents a setback for anti-abortion activists in the state, who have sought to restrict access to abortion care following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning the federal right to abortion.
In 2023, Wyoming lawmakers passed legislation banning nearly all abortions, with limited exceptions. Alongside this, they enacted a separate law specifically targeting medication abortion. These laws were challenged in court by associations and health professionals and subsequently suspended pending the Wyoming Supreme Court’s review.
On Tuesday, the court determined that the laws were in conflict with the Wyoming Constitution, with four justices voting in favor of the decision and one dissenting. “The decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a woman’s health decision, protected by” the state constitution, the court wrote in its ruling. The court further stated that “the right of an adult to make their own health decisions is a fundamental right because of the very specific language used” in the Wyoming Constitution.
The ruling effectively overturns the 2023 legislation. However, the court clarified that state lawmakers retain the authority to submit the issue to voters through a constitutional amendment.
Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon responded to the ruling with disappointment, stating, “This decision may resolve, for the moment, a legal question, but it does not resolve the moral question and does not reflect the position of many citizens of Wyoming, including myself.” He added, “It is time for this issue to be put to a vote by the people. (…) A constitutional amendment submitted to the people of Wyoming would trump all judicial decisions.”
Background and Context
The legal challenge in Wyoming is part of a broader national battle over abortion access following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ended the federal constitutional right to abortion. Since that ruling, states have been enacting a range of laws, from outright bans to restrictions on access. Wyoming’s attempt to ban abortion pills reflects this trend, and the state’s constitution, with its specific language regarding health decisions, has proven to be a key factor in the court’s decision.
The ruling highlights the increasing importance of state constitutions in protecting abortion rights, particularly in states where the right to abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the state constitution but is inferred from broader privacy or health care provisions.
“The right of an adult to make their own health decisions is a fundamental right because of the very specific language used” in the Wyoming Constitution, the court stated.
