We are Wyoming attorneys who represent folks who are often on opposite side in court.
One of us represents civil plaintiffs, or those who bring lawsuits. The other represents defendants in civil cases, or those against whom lawsuits are filed.
While we fight against each other in court, we stand together on this issue: a fair, independent judiciary is essential to American democracy.
In recent months we’ve seen growing attacks on the judicial branch, especially on federal judges. Some politicians – including members of Wyoming’s own congressional delegation – have called for the impeachment of judges and significant changes to the federal judiciary.
Others in positions of power and members of the public have called for violence against judges.
These actions don’t just challenge individual rulings – they threaten the very foundation of our legal system and, in turn, our democratic republic.
This isn’t about politics. It’s about how our government is structured and the basic principles that keep it functioning. It’s Civics 101.
A Foundational Principle
Since before the Constitution was adopted, America’s founders understood the importance of keeping the courts separate from the political branches.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 78 argued that “the complete independence of the courts is peculiarly essential to a limited Constitution.”
What Hamilton meant by a “limited Constitution” is one in which there are specified exceptions to governmental authority, such as a ban on passing laws after the fact or quartering soldiers in our homes.
Our Constitution is, by Hamilton’s definition, a limited one. The Bill of Rights, or the first ten Amendments, demonstrates this by setting forth what the government cannot do, rather than what it can.
It is the job of the courts to call out when the other branches cross those lines.
Without an independent judiciary to check and balance the legislative and executive branches, the rights written into our Constitution would be meaningless.
Wyoming’s Judicial System: A Model Worth Protecting
An independent judiciary, like what we are so lucky to have in Wyoming, is essential to upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights and freedoms of all individuals, rather than the few.
Yet, we have seen efforts recently to change our system of appointment and retention to one where judges are elected.
By remaining free from external pressures and political influence, judges can make fair and impartial decisions based solely on the law and evidence.
This independence ensures accountability for all, including those in power, and maintains public confidence in the justice system. When a judge gets something wrong, a party can utilize the appellate process to correct that decision.
In Wyoming, if the public is really unhappy with a judge’s performance, the voters can choose not to retain that judge at the ballot box.
If a judge is acting unethically, anyone can make a complaint to the Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics.
In states where judges are elected, they focus on raising money rather than making the right decisions, and there are more, and more severe, incidents of judicial misconduct.
Wyomingites are truly blessed to have highly qualified and dedicated public servants who are focused on upholding the rule of law and the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Wyoming.
When a system is not broken, we should not be so eager to find a “solution” to a problem that does not exist.
Federal Judges: Publicly Accountable, Too
The idea that federal judges are somehow elevated to the bench in a vacuum or without public input is simply not true, yet our Congressional delegation is actively perpetuating this falsehood.
The president nominates federal judges, and the Senate must confirm them.
Indeed, in every election cycle, there are countless news stories and op/ed pieces speculating how any particular candidate might influence the judiciary through their nominees who ultimately have to go through the confirmation process set forth in the Constitution.
Our elected officials, including Senators John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis, play a direct role in shaping the federal judiciary.
There is redress against judges supposedly “going rogue.” Individuals can make ethics complaints against federal judges, which will be investigated and disciplined if appropriate.
Federal judges can be impeached, but only for serious wrongdoing, like bribery or criminal behavior. Impeachment is such a severe remedy that in the nearly 250 years since this system was designed, only 15 judges have been removed this way.
Disagreeing with a judge’s ruling is not a valid reason for impeachment; suggesting otherwise is irresponsible and contrary to the plain language of the Constitution that we as lawyers, and our Congressional delegation, took oaths to uphold and defend.
Understanding the Process
Much of the recent outrage seems to come from confusion about what judges actually do.
Take injunctions, for example.
An injunction is a legal order that puts a temporary stop on something while a court case moves forward. It’s not a final decision – it’s more like a pause button to prevent harm before the court has time to fully consider the facts and law.
For instance, when the Biden Administration introduced a student loan forgiveness plan, several states sued.
A federal court issued a nationwide injunction to stop the program temporarily while legal questions were resolved. That’s a normal part of how the legal system works — not an abuse of power by an “activist” judge.
Every administration receives adverse rulings, sometimes even by the same judges it appointed – that is how the system is supposed to work.
We would caution anyone seeking a wholesale restructuring of the judicial branch because they disagree with some decisions happening today. After all, they will have to live with the consequences of that restructuring when someone with whom they don’t agree is leading the executive branch.
Our Founders foresaw this very issue, which is why they so wisely ensured that the judicial branch was an independent and co-equal branch of government, free to make the right decision based on the law rather than a politically expedient one.
A Call for Civility and Respect
We’re not taking a position on specific court cases or legal policies. What we’re saying is this: attacking judges simply for doing their jobs is dangerous.
It undermines trust in our legal system, threatens the rule of law, and weakens our democracy.
The United States was built on the idea that no one is above the law. That idea only works if judges can make decisions based on the law, not political pressure.
The judicial branch is co-equal to the executive and legislative branches – not subordinate to them.
Stoking outrage and disrespect for the judiciary can lead down very dark paths; indeed, we’ve recently seen headlines about an attorney in our great state who advised their client not to follow a decision of the Wyoming Supreme Court because the attorney personally disagreed with the ruling.
When individuals feel empowered to simply disregard court orders, the protection that the courts provide each and every one of us is weakened.
Name calling, labeling judges or justices as liberal or conservative “activists”, and not being completely truthful about how our system works hurts all of us, regardless of political affiliation.
We urge everyone, especially our elected officials, to respect the role of the courts.
Protecting judicial independence doesn’t mean agreeing with every ruling or even thinking that the system is perfect, because it’s not – it means that judges must be allowed to toil away without influence from politicians, public opinion, or campaign contributions.
In other words, judges should be allowed to do their jobs, which is to apply the facts of each case to the governing law.
This is the only way the system can work the way our founders so wisely designed it. Only then can our nation become the shining city on the hill that is firmly within its potential.
Alaina Stedillie, partner at the Casper office of Crowley Fleck PLLP, is a civil defense attorney, while Grant Lawson, the managing partner at The Law Firm for Truck Safety, also in Casper, specializes in plaintiffs' civil actions.
