This joint resolution proposes an amendment to Article 1, Section 38(c) of the Wyoming Constitution to give the legislature the primary role in defining what counts as “health care” for the state constitutional right of health care access and to permit statutory restrictions on that right. The measure also directs that laws regulating health care be tested under a deferential, rational-basis standard rather than heightened scrutiny.
If adopted by voters, the change would shift a key separation-of-powers question: courts would have less authority to interpret the scope of the right and more latitude to uphold legislative limits on services. That shift affects any contested medical services (for example, reproductive, end-of-life, or gender-affirming care), the agencies that regulate providers, and the litigation strategies of plaintiffs and defendants in state courts.
At a Glance
What It Does
Alters the state constitution to place definitional authority over “health care” with the Wyoming Legislature and to permit laws regulating health care that are “reasonably related” to protecting health and welfare. The ballot language makes clear that judicial review of those laws should be deferential — the rational-basis test — rather than strict or intermediate scrutiny.
Who It Affects
Directly affects state lawmakers, state agencies that enforce health and professional licensing rules, and courts that adjudicate constitutional challenges. Indirectly affects hospitals, clinics, insurers, individual practitioners, and patients who seek services that could be excluded by statute.
Why It Matters
The amendment reorders who decides the boundaries of a constitutional right in Wyoming, making statutory limits harder for courts to invalidate. For health-sector compliance officers, regulators, and counsel, it changes litigation posture and could alter what services are allowable, reimbursable, or licensable under state law.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution proposes specific edits to the state constitution’s section on the right of health care access. Instead of leaving the boundaries of that right primarily to judicial interpretation, the amendment puts the legislature in the driver’s seat: lawmakers would be empowered to say what counts as health care and to pass laws placing “reasonable and necessary” limits on the right.
The measure’s ballot explanatory text explicitly frames subsequent judicial review as deferential.
Practically, that means a future statute that narrows access to a particular service would be reviewed with a presumption of constitutionality. Challengers would face the lighter burden of showing a legislature’s choice is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, rather than proving a law fails strict or intermediate scrutiny.
That change alters both pleading strategies and the kinds of expert proof courts will examine in constitutional challenges.The joint resolution also requires the Secretary of State to present a specific explanatory statement to voters highlighting that the legislature, not the courts, would define health care for the right and that courts should apply rational-basis review. Because this is a constitutional amendment, voter approval would be necessary to make the change effective; if approved, statutes enacted under the new framework would enter a substantially more deferential legal environment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution targets Article 1, Section 38(c) of the Wyoming Constitution and proposes replacing that subsection with text that reallocates definitional authority to the legislature.
The Secretary of State must place an explanatory statement on the ballot stating that only the legislature may define “health care” for the constitutional right and that courts should apply rational-basis review to health-care regulations.
The amendment’s operative language allows laws regulating health care if they are “reasonably related” to protecting health and general welfare, embedding a permissive statutory standard into the constitution.
Because this is a constitutional amendment, any change takes effect only after voter approval by a majority at a statewide election.
If enacted, plaintiffs challenging health-care restrictions must show the legislature’s classification or restriction lacks any rational relation to a legitimate state interest, a significantly lower bar than strict scrutiny.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Reassigns who defines ‘health care’ and permits legislative limits
The core text replaces the existing subsection with a clause that expressly gives the legislature authority to determine what constitutes health care for the constitutional right and to enact restrictions that are reasonable and necessary. Practically, this grants lawmakers the power to exclude particular services from constitutional protection by statute or to regulate them conditionally; it also removes ambiguity about whether courts or the legislature is the primary interpreter of the right’s scope.
Built-in standard for statutory justification
The amendment includes language authorizing laws that are “reasonably related to protect protecting the health and general welfare,” which the Secretary of State’s explanatory text frames as signaling rational-basis judicial review. Embedding this justificatory phrase in the constitution guides courts toward deferential review and restricts the types of legal arguments (e.g., strict proportionality or compelled balancing) that successful challengers can use.
Required voter-facing explanation of effect
The resolution instructs the Secretary of State to place a statement on the ballot describing the change in separation of powers and the intended standard of review. That explanatory language will shape public understanding at the time of voting and can influence litigation framing later, because courts sometimes reference voter materials when construing ambiguities in constitutional amendments.
How legislatures and courts will operate under the amendment
If voters ratify the amendment, the legislature gains explicit authority to pass statutes that define the scope of covered services and to attach restrictions; agencies enforce those statutes. Courts will evaluate challenges under the deferential standard embedded by the amendment and the ballot framing, making it harder to enjoin or strike down legislative limits absent obvious irrationality.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Wyoming Legislature: Gains clear constitutional authority to set policy boundaries for health services, reducing judicial second-guessing and expanding room for majoritarian policy choices.
- State regulators and licensing boards: Receive clearer statutory direction and a stronger presumption of constitutionality for rules and restrictions tied to legislative definitions.
- Policy advocates seeking statutory limits on particular services (for example, groups opposed to certain reproductive or gender-related care): Will have a lower litigation hurdle and a clearer pathway to enshrine restrictions in statute.
- Insurers and health-plan administrators: May benefit from clearer state-level definitions that allow plan design and coverage exclusions to align with statutes rather than court interpretations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Patients seeking services that a future legislature could exclude: Face greater risk that court challenges will fail and access will be lost or curtailed under state law.
- Providers of contested services (clinics, specialists): Risk criminal or professional liability changes, reduced reimbursement, or license restrictions tied to legislative definitions.
- State judiciary: Loses a degree of interpretive authority over the right of health care access, constraining courts’ capacity to protect minority rights against majority statutes.
- Small health-care providers and rural systems: May shoulder compliance costs and uncertainty if the legislature enacts new licensing, reporting, or restriction regimes that are harder to challenge judicially.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The amendment pits democratic control — letting elected legislators set and change the scope of health-care protections — against judicial protection of individual and minority rights; it solves the problem of popular accountability by subordinating judicial review, but in doing so it risks leaving vulnerable patients with fewer constitutional safeguards against majoritarian limits.
Two practical implementation problems stand out. First, the amendment leaves open what process the legislature must follow when it "defines" health care — there is no procedural constraint on how narrowly or broadly lawmakers may draft definitions, nor any timetable or required stakeholder input.
That silence creates a risk of vagueness and legal challenges about whether a particular statutory scheme is a permissible exercise of the new authority or an overbroad deprivation of protected decision-making.
Second, embedding a deferential review posture in ballot language and constitutional text does not eliminate all judicial scrutiny. Courts retain the duty to apply constitutional protections and to invalidate laws that are arbitrary or lack any rational relation to legitimate state interests.
What is uncertain is how state courts will operationalize the new wording when faced with competing precedents, federal constitutional claims, or statutory schemes that implicate other individual-rights doctrines. That mix will generate litigation over both the substantive boundaries of "health care" and the procedural standards courts must apply, producing transitional uncertainty for providers and patients.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.