In October 2018,  the so-called Data Trespass Laws were found to be unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment. Data trespass laws judged to be unconstitutional In October 2018,  the so-called Data Trespass Laws were found to be unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment. Dated the 29th of October 2018, United States District Judge Scott W. Skavdah wrote in his Conclusion: "The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech in this case leads the Court to find Wyoming statutes §§ 6-3-414(c) and 40-27-101(c) are facially unconstitutional." No appeal was made by the state of Wyoming. Mary Kay Hill, the governor’s chief of staff, said: "There wasn’t an awful lot of conversation about that. The governor’s position is that if there is a solution that it would be best addressed by the Legislature".    
In October 2018, a portion of the so-called 'Data Trespass' laws were found to be unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment. Portion of data trespass laws judged to be unconstitutional In October 2018, a portion of the so-called Data Trespass laws were found to be unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment. Dated the 29th of October 2018, United States District Judge Scott W. Skavdah wrote in his Conclusion: "The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech in this case leads the Court to find Wyoming statutes §§ 6-3-414(c) and 40-27-101(c) are facially unconstitutional." No appeal was made by the state of Wyoming. Mary Kay Hill, the governor’s chief of staff, said: "There wasn’t an awful lot of conversation about that. The governor’s position is that if there is a solution that it would be best addressed by the Legislature". Laws remain in place Although the portion of the 'data trespass' laws examined by Judge Scott Skavdahl was found to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the laws are still in effect until repealed. This is because of the legal concept of severability: "Wyoming has a presumption in favor of severability; that is that you can strike down one part of the law without striking down the entire thing". Skavdahl could only examine a portion of the law, but could not declare the whole statute unconstitutional or otherwise. This has left some disagreement about what remains of the 'data trespass' laws. Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, stated: "If the trespass and the data collection occur on the same parcel of private land, the law and the much higher penalties still apply". Yet Western Watersheds’ state director Jonathan Ratner argued that because the data censorship laws violated the U.S. Constitution, the state or others cannot prosecute people using the laws. But Ratner also stated: "The issue has nothing to do with private lands as is made clear in both rulings. The state’s longstanding trespass law makes it illegal to trespass. Nothing has changed regarding that statute." So the state's existing laws on trespass still remain. On the website Tri-State Livestock News, Harriet Hageman, a water and natural resource attornery, stated: "Landowners continue to have protection from someone coming onto their property without their permission. None of the plaintiffs in that case are entitled to access private property and collect data unless the landowner allows them to do so."
A
a portion of
R
Data Trespass Laws
'Data Trespass' laws
R
Data
Portion of data
A
a portion of
R
Laws
laws
A
Laws remain in place
A
Although the portion of the 'data trespass' laws examined by Judge Scott Skavdahl was found to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the laws are still in effect until repealed. This is because of the legal concept of severability: "Wyoming has a presumption in favor of severability; that is that you can strike down one part of the law without striking down the entire thing". Skavdahl could only examine a portion of the law, but could not declare the whole statute unconstitutional or otherwise.
A
This has left some disagreement about what remains of the 'data trespass' laws. Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, stated: "If the trespass and the data collection occur on the same parcel of private land, the law and the much higher penalties still apply". Yet Western Watersheds’ state director Jonathan Ratner argued that because the data censorship laws violated the U.S. Constitution, the state or others cannot prosecute people using the laws. But Ratner also stated: "The issue has nothing to do with private lands as is made clear in both rulings. The state’s longstanding trespass law makes it illegal to trespass. Nothing has changed regarding that statute."
A
So the state's existing laws on trespass still remain. On the website Tri-State Livestock News, Harriet Hageman, a water and natural resource attornery, stated: "Landowners continue to have protection from someone coming onto their property without their permission. None of the plaintiffs in that case are entitled to access private property and collect data unless the landowner allows them to do so."