IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2020 WY 149

 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2020

December 16, 2020

TIMOTHY O. BEPPLER and KATHRYN L. 

BEPPLER, individually and on behalf of 

their minor grandchildren; NATHAN 

PRETE, individually and on behalf of his 

minor children; and TIFFANY 

ESKELSON-MAESTAS, individually and 

on behalf of her minor children,

Appellants

(Plaintiffs),

v.

UINTA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 

NUMBER ONE, STATE OF WYOMING, a 

body corporate,

Appellee

(Defendant).

S-20-0140

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County

The Honorable Steven K. Sharpe, Judge

Representing Appellants:

Michael A. Rollin, Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP, Denver, Colorado; 

Sharon M. Rose, The Rose Law Firm, P.C., Evanston, Wyoming. Argument by 

Mr. Rollin.

Representing Appellee:

Geoffrey J. Phillips, Phillips Law, LLC, Evanston, Wyoming. Argument by 

Mr. Phillips.

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers 

are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 

82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in

the permanent volume.
1

FOX, Justice.

[¶1] Parents and grandparents of students in the Uinta County School District Number 

One filed this lawsuit to challenge a rule adopted by the School District that permitted 

school personnel to carry firearms on school property. They alleged the rule (“Rule 

CKA”) violated the Wyoming Constitution, did not comply with the enabling statute, and 

was not adopted in compliance with the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act. The 

district court granted summary judgment in favor of the parents and grandparents on their

count alleging violation of the enabling statute, and granted the School District’s motions 

to dismiss or for summary judgment on the remaining three counts. The parents and 

grandparents appeal. We conclude the district court’s order invalidating Rule CKA 

renders all other issues moot, and we remand for entry of a final order and dismissal of 

the remaining claims. 

ISSUE

[¶2] Did the summary judgment order invalidating the rule render this appeal moot? 

FACTS

[¶3] The 2017 Wyoming Legislature enacted a law authorizing school districts to adopt 

rules “to allow the possession of firearms by employees possessing a valid concealed 

carry permit . . . on or in” school property. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-3-132 (LexisNexis 

2017). The statute requires such rules to contain certain provisions, including “ongoing 

training requirements, curricula and instructor qualifications, subject to approval by local 

law enforcement . . . .” 21-3-132(c)(iii). The School District adopted a firearm policy 

rule in 2018, but one of the Appellants in the current action sued to challenge it, and the 

district court determined the rule was not adopted in compliance “with the formal notice 

and rulemaking requirements of the [Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act],” and 

declared the “School Firearms Policy . . . null and void.” The School District then issued 

its Notice of Intent to Adopt New Rules authorizing district personnel to carry concealed

firearms on school property, followed by an extensive rulemaking process. The School 

District approved Rule CKA April 9, 2019. As required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-3-

132(e), the School District Superintendent notified students’ parents and guardians of the 

rule’s adoption by letter dated August 2, 2019. 

[¶4] Appellants Timothy O. Beppler and Kathryn L. Beppler, as grandparents of 

children attending school in the School District; Nathan Prete, as the parent of children 

attending school in the School District; and Tiffany Eskelson-Maestas, as the parent of 

children attending school in the School District, filed their Complaint for Declaratory 

Judgment and Injunctive Relief August 26, 2019. In Count I, they sought declaratory 

judgment that Rule CKA violated the Wyoming Constitution and should be set aside 

pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(B). In Count II, they alleged that Rule 
2

CKA violated Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-3-132(c)(iii) because it did not establish instructor 

qualifications, and that the rule should therefore “be held unlawful and set aside . . . .” In 

Counts III and IV, they sought judgment declaring Rule CKA was not adopted in 

compliance with the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-

114(c)(ii). The parties filed numerous motions and cross-motions. The district court

made the following rulings relevant to this appeal:

• December 3, 2019 Order dismissing Counts III and IV for 

lack of jurisdiction, finding that those claims should have 

been filed as petitions for review of administrative action and 

not declaratory judgment actions. The district court denied 

the School District’s motions to dismiss or for summary 

judgment on Count I (violation of constitution) and Count II 

(failure to comply with statutory requirement for instructor 

qualifications). 

• April 24, 2020 Order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary 

judgment, finding Rule CKA is invalid because the rule fails 

to follow the statute requiring establishment of instructor 

qualifications. 

• April 24, 2020 Order dismissing Count I of the Complaint, 

finding that Appellants failed to state a claim of equal 

protection or substantive due process violations. 

[¶5] The parents and grandparents appeal the dismissal of Counts I, III, and IV on 

various grounds. The School District did not appeal the district court’s order finding 

Rule CKA was invalid. 

DISCUSSION

[¶6] The parties have not raised mootness; however, the “doctrine [of mootness]

represents the time element of standing.” Operation Save Am. v. City of Jackson, 2012 

WY 51, ¶ 21, 275 P.3d 438, 448 (Wyo. 2012). “[B]ecause standing is a ‘vital 

jurisprudential’ rule, a ‘court may still, and should, raise standing issues sua sponte when 

the parties do not.’” Williams v. State ex rel. Univ. of Wyo. Bd. of Trs., 2019 WY 90, ¶ 7, 

448 P.3d 222, 226 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting In re L-MHB, 2018 WY 140, ¶ 24, 431 P.3d 

560, 568 (Wyo. 2018)). 

[¶7] Appellants have, perhaps inadvertently, made a strong argument for mootness. 

They contend W.R.C.P. 52(d) prohibited the district court’s consideration of the 

constitutional claim because the order invalidating Rule CKA for failure to establish 

instructor qualifications “operates ab initio, requiring Appellee to restart the rulemaking 
3

process if it wishes to adopt a new Rule permitting armed staff in its schools.” The 

School District’s argument that it was not required to restart rulemaking because the 

district court only invalidated the rule, rather than declaring it null and void, is 

unavailing. The Court in State Bd. of Equalization v. Jackson Hole Ski Corp., 745 P.2d 

58, 60 (Wyo. 1987) used the term “null and void.” We see no significant difference 

between those words and a finding that a rule is “invalid,” a word the Court used to the 

same effect in Crouthamel v. Bd. of Albany Cnty. Comm’rs, 951 P.2d 835, 839 (Wyo. 

1998). Because the School District was required to restart rulemaking, the controversy 

over Rule CKA ended when the district court issued its order granting Appellants’

summary judgment. “When no controversy exists, courts will not consume their time 

dealing with moot questions.” Powder River Basin Res. Council v. Wyo. Dep’t of Env’t

Quality, 2020 WY 127, ¶ 10, 473 P.3d 294, 297 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting In re Birkholz, 

2019 WY 19, ¶ 2, 434 P.3d 1102, 1103 (Wyo. 2019)). This appeal is moot because the 

determination of the issues appealed “will have no practical effect on the existing 

controversy.” Powder River Basin, 2020 WY 127, ¶ 10, 473 P.3d at 297. Further, the 

case was moot at the time the district court entered its final order invalidating Rule CKA. 

[¶8] At oral argument, counsel for the Appellants suggested this Court apply the 

exception to the mootness doctrine for controversies capable of repetition yet evading 

review. That exception requires two elements: (1) “the duration of the challenged action 

must be too short for completion of litigation prior to its cessation or expiration,” and (2) 

“there must be a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be 

subjected to the same action again.” Id. at ¶ 13, 473 P.3d at 298 (quoting Operation Save 

Am., 2012 WY 51, ¶ 30, 275 P.3d at 450). It is likely that the same complaining parties 

will be subject to the same action by the School District again, but the duration of that 

action will not be too short for completion of litigation before its cessation. The School 

District may restart rulemaking; and these parents and grandparents will have a full 

opportunity to challenge any new rule. 

[¶9] Nor does the “great public importance” exception to mootness apply. We 

recognize that Appellants raise questions of constitutional magnitude, which may be of 

great public importance. See Powder River Basin, 2020 WY 127, ¶ 16, 473 P.3d at 298. 

However, we decline to address the constitutionality of a rule that is subject to revision 

and renewed challenges which will, in all likelihood, offer us an opportunity to consider 

the constitutionality of the rule in its most recent form.1

 

[¶10] A decision by the Court on the issues raised in this appeal would be purely 

advisory. There were no live issues remaining to be litigated when the district court 

entered its order invalidating Rule CKA, and it should have dismissed the other claims. 

1 Appellants have not challenged the enabling statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-3-132. 
4

Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Tilden, 2003 WY 31, ¶ 9, 64 P.3d 739, 742 (Wyo. 2003). We 

therefore remand to the district court for dismissal of all but its order on Count II.