Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Free Speech Foreign Judgments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances draft shielding Wyoming residents from enforcement of some foreign judgments
Summary
A legislative attorney presented bill draft 27 LSO 9 to bar state recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments that target expression protected by the U.S. or Wyoming constitutions; lawmakers agreed to refine language clarifying how non‑expressive crimes and employee decision‑making are treated and to continue work with a staff draft and the working group.
Talise Hansen, legislative attorney with the Legislative Service Office, told the Senate select committee on blockchain she drafted 27 LSO 9 at the chairman’s request to limit state enforcement of foreign judgments where protected expression is a substantial factor. "The bill draft would prohibit state courts from recognizing, enforcing, or giving effect to any foreign judgment that imposes liability or compels action arising from conduct where protected expression is a substantial factor," Hansen said, summarizing the draft’s substance and an effective date of July 1, 2027.
Co‑chair (speaker 2) and other members described the draft as the "shield" portion of an earlier, broader proposal that previously included remedies to attack foreign governments as well as defenses. The co‑chair said the revised draft focuses on protecting residents and entities that choose to host data in Wyoming while leaving other enforcement matters to federal or overseas authorities.
Committee staff flagged implementation questions, including complex determinations that could fall to individual employees: "This determination may require a complex legal and constitutional analysis that may be difficult for individual employees to make in the absence of guidance from the courts or the attorney general," a staff comment warned. Members discussed options to address that concern: add clarifying language limiting the statute’s reach to expression‑related conduct, create a presumption of good faith for employees, or provide an avenue to seek attorney‑general or judicial guidance. Senator(s) on the committee suggested inserting an explicit proviso that non‑expressive crimes are outside the shield’s protection.
Lawmakers also agreed to preserve a declaratory‑judgment remedy in the draft so affected people or entities could seek injunctive relief where state actors have not already acted. The committee did not vote on the draft but directed staff to incorporate clarifying language about segregation of expressive and non‑expressive conduct, look up whether state law already presumes government employees act in good faith, and circulate the revised text to the working group ahead of a September meeting.
The chair closed public comment on the draft after brief remarks from Americans for Prosperity and remote commentators who supported the narrower shield approach and requested further stakeholder engagement. The committee will continue refining 27 LSO 9 in its working group before returning to the full select committee.
