The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled 4-1 on January 6, 2026, that two 2023 laws banning most abortions—including a first-in-the-nation explicit ban on abortion pills—violate a 2012 state constitutional amendment guaranteeing competent adults the right to make their own health care decisions.
The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled on January 6, 2026, that abortion will remain legal in the state after it struck down two 2023 statutes: the Life is a Human Right Act, which sought to prohibit most abortions, and a separate law that made it illegal to prescribe or dispense medication used to end a pregnancy.
In a 4–1 decision, the court held the laws conflict with Article 1, Section 38 of the Wyoming Constitution—an amendment approved by voters in 2012 stating that “each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions.” The majority concluded that the decision whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a protected health care decision under that provision.
Chief Justice Lynne J. Boomgaarden wrote that while the state has an interest in protecting prenatal life, it did not carry its burden to justify the statutes’ restrictions on a woman’s constitutionally protected health care choices. The court also rejected Wyoming’s argument that abortion is not “health care,” and said it was not the judiciary’s role to rewrite the constitution based on what some lawmakers or voters may have intended when the amendment was adopted.
The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by Wellspring Health Access—Wyoming’s only abortion clinic—along with Chelsea’s Fund, medical professionals and individual women. Lower courts had previously blocked the laws from taking effect while the case proceeded.
The decision drew attention because Wyoming’s Supreme Court is composed of justices appointed by Republican governors. Justice Kari Gray dissented, while other members of the court either joined the majority’s strict-scrutiny approach or agreed with the result on different constitutional grounds.
Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican who opposes abortion, criticized the ruling as “profoundly unfortunate” and urged lawmakers to pursue a new constitutional amendment that would more clearly permit abortion bans.
The case reflects how state constitutional provisions—some enacted for reasons unrelated to abortion—have become central battlegrounds in abortion litigation since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022 ended federal constitutional protections for abortion rights.
