A Wyoming judge who was nearly removed from the bench for refusing to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies has been awarded more than $640,000 in legal fees after a federal court ruled the state violated her First Amendment rights.
Magistrate Judge Ruth Neely of Pinedale, Wyoming, spent the better part of a decade fighting disciplinary action that threatened to end her judicial career. The payout, approved by a federal judge, covers attorney fees and costs Neely racked up defending herself against a state judicial ethics commission that tried to strip her of her position.
The case dates to 2014, when a local reporter asked Neely whether she would officiate same-sex weddings. Neely, a part-time municipal magistrate in the small town of Pinedale, said her religious beliefs would not allow her to do so. Wyoming's Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics launched proceedings against her shortly after, as Fox News reported.
The commission sought to remove Neely from the bench entirely. Wyoming's Supreme Court did not go that far but issued a public censure in 2017, finding that Neely had violated the state's judicial code of conduct. The censure carried no suspension or removal, but it marked her record and sent a clear message about what the state expected from its judges on the issue.
Neely did not quietly accept the outcome. She took her case to federal court, arguing that Wyoming had punished her for exercising her religious beliefs and her right to free speech. The legal battle stretched on for years.
In 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming ruled in Neely's favor. The court found that the state's disciplinary action violated the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. The ruling held that Wyoming had no compelling interest in forcing a part-time magistrate to perform wedding ceremonies that conflicted with her sincerely held religious convictions, particularly when other judges were available to perform the ceremonies.
The court noted that Neely had never refused to perform her other judicial duties. Her objection was narrow: she would not personally solemnize same-sex unions. She had also indicated she would refer any same-sex couple to another officiant who could perform the ceremony without delay.
The ruling fits within a broader pattern of federal courts recognizing religious liberty claims by public officials and private citizens alike. A Christian photographer in Louisville recently won an $800,000 settlement after the city tried to compel her to photograph same-sex weddings under a local anti-discrimination ordinance.
With the constitutional question settled, the court turned to the matter of attorney fees. Neely's legal team, which included attorneys from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, sought reimbursement for years of litigation costs. The federal court awarded $640,252 in fees and expenses.
The fee award is significant not just for its size but for what it signals. When a government entity loses a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the prevailing plaintiff can recover reasonable attorney fees. The provision exists to ensure that citizens can afford to challenge unconstitutional government action without bearing the full financial burden themselves.
Wyoming taxpayers will foot the bill. The state's judicial conduct commission, which initiated the proceedings against Neely, is funded by public dollars. The $640,000 payout comes on top of whatever the state spent on its own attorneys over the course of the litigation.
Neely expressed relief at the outcome after nearly a decade of legal uncertainty. She told Fox News that the ordeal had been difficult for her and her family but that she felt vindicated by the court's decision.
"I'm grateful that the court recognized that the government can't punish someone for their religious beliefs."
Her attorneys at Becket framed the case as a warning to other states that might try to force judges or officials to choose between their faith and their careers. They argued that the First Amendment protects government employees from being coerced into participating in ceremonies that violate their conscience, as long as the public is not denied services.
The case echoes other recent fights over religious conscience in professional settings. In Oregon, a Catholic counselor sued the state after it imposed a $90,000 fine because she declined to affirm a client's same-sex relationship during therapy sessions.
The Neely decision does not create binding precedent outside Wyoming's federal district, but it adds to a growing body of case law favoring religious liberty claims in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis. In that case, the Court held that Colorado could not compel a web designer to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. The majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, emphasized that the First Amendment protects individuals from being forced to express messages that conflict with their beliefs.
Lower courts have increasingly applied that reasoning to cases involving government employees, not just private business owners. The question of whether a public official can decline specific duties on religious grounds remains unsettled at the Supreme Court level, but rulings like Neely's push the doctrine forward.
The Fifth Circuit's recent decision upholding Texas's Ten Commandments law for public school classrooms reflects a similar judicial willingness to protect religious expression in government settings, a trend that would have been nearly unthinkable a decade ago.
Critics of the Neely ruling argue that public officials take an oath to serve all citizens equally and should not be permitted to pick and choose which duties they perform. LGBTQ advocacy groups have warned that decisions like this one could open the door to broader refusals of service by government employees.
Supporters counter that Neely never denied anyone a marriage. She simply declined to be the one performing the ceremony. No same-sex couple in Sublette County was unable to get married because of her position. The accommodation she offered, referring couples to another willing officiant, ensured that the public function was fulfilled without forcing her to act against her conscience.
The entire case traces back to one question from a reporter in 2014. Neely's honest answer about her religious beliefs triggered a disciplinary process that consumed nearly ten years of her life and career. She was not accused of mistreating anyone, denying services, or failing to perform her other duties. She was targeted for what she believed and what she said she would not do.
The Supreme Court's willingness to hear challenges from religious institutions excluded from public programs suggests that the justices remain interested in policing the boundary between anti-discrimination enforcement and religious liberty.
Wyoming's commission could have handled the matter differently. It could have established a referral system, assigned wedding duties to willing judges, or simply acknowledged that a part-time magistrate in a small town posed no real barrier to marriage access. Instead, it chose confrontation, and taxpayers are now paying for it.
Neely remains on the bench. She continues to serve as a magistrate in Pinedale, handling the same docket she handled before the controversy began. The censure on her record has been effectively nullified by the federal court's finding that the state violated her constitutional rights.
No appeal has been announced by the state. Wyoming's attorney general's office has not publicly indicated whether it intends to challenge the fee award or the underlying constitutional ruling. If the state does not appeal, the decision stands as a final judgment.
The Becket Fund has signaled it will use the Neely case as a template for future religious liberty challenges involving government employees. The organization has a track record of selecting cases with sympathetic facts and strong legal footing, and the $640,000 fee award gives them a concrete result to point to when recruiting future plaintiffs.
For judges and public officials across the country who hold traditional religious views on marriage, the Neely decision offers a measure of protection. It does not guarantee that every refusal will be upheld, but it establishes that states cannot reflexively punish officials for expressing religious objections without first demonstrating a compelling interest and showing that no less restrictive alternative exists.
When a state spends a decade trying to destroy a small-town judge for answering a reporter's question honestly, and ends up writing a six-figure check for the privilege, the lesson writes itself.
