Rule 5.1.Constitutional challenge to a statute
Group II: Commencement of Action; Service of Process: Pleadings, Motions, and Orders · Last amended March 1, 2017 · Last verified July 14, 2026
Full Text of Rule 5.1
Amendment History
Added February 2, 2017, effective March 1, 2017.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 5.1 covers a narrow but important situation: a lawsuit where someone argues that a Wyoming statute is unconstitutional, but the state itself — or one of its officers, agencies, or employees — is not already a party to the case. In that scenario, the rule requires the party raising the constitutional challenge to serve the attorney general with a copy of the pleading or motion that raises it.
The point is notice: the state has a stake in defending the validity of its own laws, and it cannot weigh in on a challenge it does not know about. Serving the attorney general gives the state's chief legal office the chance to decide whether to get involved, whether by intervening in the case or otherwise responding to the constitutional argument being made.
Frequently Asked Questions
When am I required to serve the attorney general under this rule?
Whenever you raise a constitutional challenge to a Wyoming statute in a case where the state, or one of its officers, agencies, or employees, is not already a party.
What if the state is already a party to my case?
Rule 5.1 does not impose this separate notice requirement in that situation, since the state is already participating in the case.
Does this rule apply to challenges against city ordinances or federal statutes?
No. By its terms, Rule 5.1 applies to challenges to the constitutionality of a Wyoming statute.
How do I serve the pleading or motion on the attorney general?
The rule requires service of a copy of the pleading or motion raising the constitutional issue; it does not prescribe a separate method beyond that, so ordinary service practice applies.
Why does Wyoming require this kind of notice?
It ensures the state has an opportunity to defend its own statutes before a court rules on their constitutionality, rather than having that question decided without the state's knowledge.