Christian judge fights to keep job

The Wyoming Supreme Court heard arguments this week in a case that could set a chilling precedent throughout the state’s judiciary. The Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics has asked the high court to remove Judge Ruth Neely, the Pinedale municipal judge and part-time circuit court magistrate, from office, ban her for life from the Wyoming judiciary, and fine her $40,000. Her offense? In response to a reporter’s question, Neely stated her Christian perspective on marriage precluded her from officiating a same-sex wedding. That statement, the commission said, was enough to show bias and an inability to adjudicate the law impartially.

The commission’s case is at odds with the First Amendment’s free speech and religious exercise clauses and is built on a judicial requirement that does not exist, Neely’s attorney Jim Campbell of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) told the court’s five justices.

“There is no judicial guidance on this issue,” Daniel Bloomberg, an attorney with the Becket Fund, told me. The Becket Fund provides legal representation in religious liberty cases and filed an amicus brief on Neely’s behalf along with amici from other legal service providers, scholars, and religious liberty advocates.

Bloomberg said that contrary to the commission’s brief filed prior to the Aug. 17 hearing, no Wyoming or federal statute requires a judge to perform gay weddings. Patrick Dixon, disciplinary counsel for the commission, had to walk back that assertion during oral arguments.

Judges can decline to service weddings for any reason. As a municipal court judge, Neely does not have the authority to perform weddings. But, as a magistrate, she can.

In 2014, with a judge’s repeal of the Wyoming marriage statute, same-sex couples began applying for marriage licenses. A reporter asked Neely if she was excited about the possibility of presiding over gay weddings. Neely said because of her religious convictions she could not take part in same-sex weddings.

“These are disfavored beliefs,” Bloomberg said.

Neely’s lawyers argued she has not violated the law or any judicial code of conduct, but must defend her job and First Amendment rights because of her beliefs and public expression of them.

The commission never received a complaint about Neely’s comment, but filed its own complaint claiming her public statement about her religious convictions demonstrated a bias against persons based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Bloomberg said the case is a matter of the commission imposing its ideological view of what the law should be as opposed to what it is. The commission’s hearings last year found Neely violated judicial codes of conduct regarding bias and impartiality. (Ironically, Neely served on a task force that wrote those codes as replacements to outdated judicial codes of conduct.) With marriage laws newly minted and no statutes or precedent guiding their decisions on the matter, the commission declared Neely in violation of their interpretation of the codes and they sought the most severe form of punishment they could levy.

It could be several weeks before the Wyoming Supreme Court issues its decision.

Area pastor Jonathan Lange attended the hearing. He told me Dixon, who earlier referred to Neely’s religious convictions as “repugnant,” continued to disparage and dismiss her beliefs and those who shared them.

He said about 70 people from across the state filled the gallery behind Neely, outnumbering opposing counsel’s supporters more than 3-1. Legal support also came from a number of amicus briefs, only one of which the court chose to accept—a letter from her diverse band of peers in Pinedale.

Fellow residents, some of them gay and lesbian, lauded Neely’s work as a judge and community member. Bloomberg said the brief demonstrated the town of Pinedale had achieved the “live and let live” environment the commission finds so elusive.