The Wyoming Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court’s decision, ruling that a group of Johnson County residents and taxpayers, including Christopher and Amy Williams, Cindy Barlow, Charles and Lois Huson, Marianne Ferrari, and Sharon Smallwood, did not have the legal standing to pursue a lawsuit against the Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County and the Wyoming Department of Audit. The plaintiffs alleged the county had mismanaged its finances and failed to adhere to proper auditing procedures.
The Heart of the Matter: Standing
The central issue in the case was whether the plaintiffs had “standing,” meaning the legal right to bring the lawsuit. The court’s decision hinged on this question, as it determined the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they had suffered a direct and concrete injury as a result of the county’s actions.
The Plaintiffs’ Claims
The plaintiffs, who are residents, property owners, and taxpayers in Johnson County, filed a declaratory action. They claimed the Board of County Commissioners violated various Wyoming laws related to financial management and auditing. They sought declarations from the court that the Board and the Department had violated these statutes. They also requested court oversight, including a forensic audit, and sought attorney fees, costs, and damages.
The plaintiffs’ complaint included ten counts, each alleging a specific violation of Wyoming law:
* Count I: Alleged the Board improperly used general funds to cover health insurance and pension costs.
* Counts II-III: Claimed the Board made excessive transfers and the Department failed to correct these.
* Count IV: Alleged the county failed to maintain a uniform accounting system and the Department didn’t correct it.
* Count V: Alleged the Department failed to require corrections to audit reports.
* Count VI: Claimed the Board improperly distributed COVID-19 relief funds.
* Counts VII-VIII: Alleged the Department failed to correct accounting errors.
* Count IX: Claimed the Department failed to enforce timely reporting requirements.
* Count X: Alleged the Department failed to contract with an independent auditor when the county’s audits were late.
The plaintiffs argued they had standing because they were “impacted taxpayers” who suffered “tangible damage and loss” due to the alleged illegalities. They asserted they were harmed through higher property taxes, fees, and sales taxes.
The Court’s Reasoning: The Brimmer Test
The Supreme Court, in its decision, affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case. The Court’s analysis focused on the “standing” doctrine, which is rooted in the separation of powers. The court explained that its role is to provide relief to those who have suffered actual harm, not to oversee the general performance of other branches of government.
To determine if the plaintiffs had standing, the court applied the “Brimmer test,” a framework used in Wyoming to assess whether a party has the right to bring a declaratory judgment action. The Brimmer test has four parts. The Court found the plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements of the first part of the test, which requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome of the case. The court found that the plaintiffs’ interests were not distinguishable from those of any other resident or taxpayer in Johnson County.
The court noted that the plaintiffs’ arguments were largely based on the idea that they were harmed as taxpayers. However, the court found their claims of increased tax burdens were speculative and not supported by concrete facts. The Court pointed out that the plaintiffs didn’t allege their tax burden had increased because of the alleged violations, but rather, speculated that it could increase in the future.
Taxpayer Standing Not Established
The court also noted that it has not yet expressly recognized taxpayer standing in Wyoming. It cited prior cases that suggest a taxpayer must show that the challenged action will increase their tax burden to establish standing. In this case, the court found the plaintiffs had not made this showing, concluding that they had failed to establish a tangible interest that had been harmed.
The court acknowledged the plaintiffs’ argument that the case was of great public importance. However, the court stated that even in cases of public importance, a party must still meet the basic requirements of the Brimmer test. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate a tangible injury meant they lacked standing to pursue the lawsuit.
The Outcome
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the case. The court’s decision means the plaintiffs’ claims against the Board of County Commissioners and the Wyoming Department of Audit will not be heard in court.