Wyoming Judge Dismisses Defamation Case Against Freedom Caucus PAC, Citing First Amendment Protections
Why It Matters
A Wyoming district court ruling has reinforced the high legal bar public officials face when bringing defamation claims against political opponents, reaffirming First Amendment protections for political speech — even when that speech is misleading or exaggerated. The decision has implications for how far elected officials across the Mountain West can go to silence criticism of their legislative records.
The ruling also reignites debate over so-called “anti-SLAPP” protections in Wyoming — laws designed to prevent powerful individuals from using litigation to suppress constitutionally protected political speech.
What Happened
Uinta County District Judge James Kaste dismissed a defamation lawsuit Thursday brought by two Wyoming Republican lawmakers against a political action committee affiliated with the Wyoming Freedom Caucus. The case had been scheduled for a five-day jury trial in June before Kaste granted the PAC’s motion for summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence to proceed.
The lawsuit was filed in 2024 by Rock Springs Republican Reps. J.T. Larson and Cody Wylie after the WY Freedom PAC sent campaign mailers and text messages to voters claiming the two legislators had voted to remove President Donald Trump from the presidential ballot. No such vote ever took place in the Wyoming Legislature.
The PAC, which launched in 2023 to support the hard-line Wyoming Freedom Caucus, argued the mailers were standard political attack advertising protected under the First Amendment. The plaintiffs argued the statements were made with “actual malice” — a legal standard requiring proof that the publisher either knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
What the Judge Said
“There is no doubt the messages were purposely crafted to exaggerate the effect of the legislators’ votes and to more efficiently criticize them,” Judge Kaste wrote in his decision. “In short, the messages were pretty standard political attack ads. Similar ads plague Americans every day, but they are indisputably protected speech under the First Amendment.”
Kaste acknowledged the statements were misleading but stressed that public officials face an especially demanding evidentiary burden in defamation cases. “The bar is high because the right to criticize our government and our public officials is so fundamental to our democracy,” he wrote.
The judge was clear his ruling was not an endorsement of negative political advertising. “That is not an endorsement of the message or the pervasive use of negative misleading political attack ads,” Kaste wrote. “It is an endorsement of the fundamental right to freedom of speech established in the First Amendment.”
Background: The Vote in Question
The controversy traces back to a 2024 budget session debate over which state officials have authority to represent Wyoming in out-of-state litigation. At the time, Secretary of State Chuck Gray had joined other Republican officials in filing an amicus brief supporting efforts to keep Trump on the Colorado ballot following a court decision to remove him over his role in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.
The Joint Appropriations Committee added a budget footnote limiting the secretary of state’s ability to initiate or join litigation outside Wyoming without specific legislative authorization. The footnote was ultimately stripped from the final budget bill, but the WY Freedom PAC characterized the lawmakers’ votes on the measure as a vote to remove Trump from the ballot.
PAC Chairman Kari Drost previously acknowledged the mailers referred to the budget footnote vote, not a direct ballot-removal vote. One postcard targeting Wylie stated he “voted with the RADICAL LEFT to remove President Trump from the ballot.” A similar mailer accused Larson of voting “NO to KEEP President Trump on the ballot.”
By the Numbers
- The PAC launched in 2023 to support Wyoming Freedom Caucus candidates
- The defamation lawsuit was filed in 2024 by two Republican incumbents
- A five-day jury trial had been scheduled for June before the dismissal
- The legal standard of “actual malice” — requiring clear and convincing evidence — was the central legal hurdle the plaintiffs could not clear
Zoom Out
The ruling reflects a national pattern of courts holding political attack advertising to a permissive First Amendment standard, even when the ads distort or exaggerate a lawmaker’s record. As Wyoming’s energy economy continues to draw national attention — including a major new oil pipeline recently approved by the Trump administration — battles over which lawmakers are sufficiently aligned with conservative priorities are expected to intensify heading into future election cycles.
The Wyoming Freedom Caucus celebrated the outcome, calling the lawsuit “meritless lawfare” and calling on the state to enact stronger anti-SLAPP protections. “The First Amendment is clear. Politicians don’t get to silence speech that points out their unpopular voting records,” the caucus said in a public statement.
What’s Next
With the defamation case now dismissed, attention turns to whether Wyoming lawmakers will take up anti-SLAPP legislation in a future session to shield political speakers from similar suits. Wyoming communities are already grappling with competing demands on public resources, and the legislature faces ongoing pressure to address a range of policy priorities when it next convenes. Larson and Wylie could still pursue an appeal of Thursday’s ruling, though no such action has been announced.
About the Author
