Rep. Robert Wharff talks with Rep. Jayme Lien (Dan Cepeda, Oil City News)

CASPER, Wyo. — In a 5–0 show of bipartisan force, the Senate Education Committee advanced a “Safeguarding Personal Expression” bill that seeks to protect student speech without compromising classroom order.

While the committee significantly scaled back the bill’s reach Friday — removing mandatory $5,000 damage floors and narrowing “instructional time” organizing — the core of House Bill 159 remains intact: a shift that gives students the right to sue for religious or political discrimination in assignments, artwork and even clothing choices.

The bill had moved through the House with near-unanimous bipartisan support during all three readings. It’s sponsored by Reps. Jayme Lien, R-Casper; Christopher Knapp, R-Gillette; Ann Lucas, R-Cheyenne; Darin McCann, R-Rock Springs; Chip Neiman, R-Hulett; and Mike Yin, D-Jackson, as well as Sens. Lynn Hutchings, R-Cheyenne, and Cheri Steinmetz, R-Lingle.

The committee adopted a series of amendments narrowing the bill’s reach before sending it to the Senate floor. Amendments included:

  • The Damage Floor: Senators removed the mandatory $5,000 minimum damage provision, leaving financial awards entirely to the discretion of a judge or jury.
  • Instructional Time: The committee narrowed the window for student organizing, replacing the phrase “instructional time” with “non-instructional time during the school day,” ensuring that clubs and political activities are limited to lunch, recess or activity blocks.
  • Tinker Standard Alignment: To prevent legal confusion, the committee struck the word “intentionally” from the disruption clause, realigning the bill with the U.S. Supreme Court’s long-standing “Tinker” standard that allows schools to act if they “reasonably forecast” a substantial disruption.

What the bill does

According to Lien, HB0159 is “first an equal treatment bill.”

“It prohibits discrimination or penalties against students for expressing religious, political or ideological views in the same manner as other speech,” she said. “This [bill] protects both spectrums on either side.”

The legislation would protect student speech in homework, artwork and classroom discussions; require viewpoint neutrality for student clubs; amend the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act to waive immunity for violations; and create a private cause of action with attorney fees and damages.

Supporters argue it codifies federal guidance dating back to the Clinton administration and reaffirmed by subsequent administrations.

“It gives parents recourse if the school district does impose on their First Amendment rights,” Lien added.

Student testimony anchors debate

The debate was framed by a sharp increase in political tension following the Sept. 10, 2025, murder of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk in Orem, Utah. Student Kylie Wall, a senior at Natrona County High School, testified that the administration’s interference with her TPUSA chapter and the subsequent threats carved into school facilities demonstrated that current district policies are insufficient to protect dissenting voices.

“I followed the correct process to start my club. … In practice, it was not [treated the same],” Wall told senators.

“Once my club became visible and once it was associated with a viewpoint that made some people uncomfortable because of its political reputation, many restrictions began appearing that were never applied to other student clubs,” she said. “I was told I could not speak to the media, even on my own time outside of school as an individual.”

Wall testified she and her club members endured months of being mocked, intimidated and threatened.

“A message appeared on campus carved into the paper towel holder in the bathroom, calling for [the] death to the organization my club was affiliated with,” she said. “At that point, the situation was no longer about disagreement — it was about safety.”

“HB0159 exists to prevent exactly this kind of situation,” Wall added. “This bill does not create special privileges — it creates clear standards.”

Lien told senators she witnessed the events unfold as the duly elected representative for the area.

Matt Sharp, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, told lawmakers the bill packages existing First Amendment precedent into clearer statutory language.

“The overarching principle of this bill … is protecting students from discrimination when they engage in expression at the same time, place and manner and to the same extent that similarly situated students may engage in it,” Sharp said. “When other students are allowed to speak … all we’re saying under this bill is everyone gets treated the same.”

Laura Peavy, representing Moms for Liberty Wyoming, echoed that sentiment.

“Schools retain the authority to prohibit expression that is unprotected under the First Amendment, that materially and substantially disrupts school operations, or that rises to the level of severe, pervasive harassment that denies another student access to education,” she said. “At its core, this bill is about fairness and clarity.”

Opponents argued existing constitutional protections already cover student speech and warned the bill could increase litigation and create confusion for administrators. Wyoming School Boards Association executive director Bryan Farmer questioned how the bill’s disruption standard would be applied.

“The student has the right of expression,” he said, “but there are some reasonable limitations on that.”

Farmer referenced the 7–2 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, including Justice Hugo Black’s dissent, warning that broad student speech protections could undermine school authority. He also raised concerns about controversial imagery.

“I don’t think that this actually limits swastikas or ISIS flags or occult symbols unless we go through that same intentionality sort of test,” Farmer said, further warning the bill could conflict with last year’s “divisive concepts” legislation. “The navigation of that by the teacher now becomes difficult between their responsibility not to instruct on the divisive concept and the student’s right to bring forward any opinion.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE