This article covers a Wyoming city councilman’s controversial social media comment calling for violent action against judges after a court blocked a state abortion restriction, the surrounding debate about judicial overreach, and his follow‑up defense insisting his words were not a threat while vowing to pursue remedies through peaceful means and political pressure.
State Representative Mike Yin posted about a Natrona County judge temporarily blocking Wyoming’s six‑week abortion ban and urged voters to respond at the ballot box, writing, “The legislature should obey the Constitution and the freedom to make your own healthcare choices. Instead we keep making it harder to keep doctors in Wyoming and kids in this state,” and adding, “The only way that changes is at the ballot box.” That exchange drew a sharp reaction from local officials and residents who saw the court action as yet another example of judges reshaping policy.
Powell City Councilman Troy Bray responded to the post with a line that stunned many: “In order for Wyoming to find justice, we will have to hang bad judges,” Bray wrote. The remark quickly brought criticism from neighbors and political observers who said an elected official should not use language that evokes violence, no matter how frustrated he or others might be with court outcomes.
Bray moved to clarify his intent in a longer message, insisting his words reflected conviction rather than an incitement, writing, “That is a statement of my beliefs, NOT a threat, as some have characterized it, nor is it a call for others to act.” He also insisted on pursuing nonviolent avenues, adding, “I will exhaust every peaceful means I can find,” he wrote. Those reassurances did little to calm critics who argue public figures carry added responsibility for how their words land.
At the same time Bray said he was targeting systemic problems with the courts and their accessibility, even using the charged phrase “by any means necessary,” which drew additional scrutiny. From a Republican point of view the underlying complaint has traction: many conservatives see a pattern of judges stepping beyond their role and tipping legal disputes into political outcomes, but the remedy should be lawful and measured, not violent.
Bray described the judicial system as “broken” and accused judges of overstepping their authority, contending courts are often the “last place you will ever find justice.” His broader critique leaned on the notion that ordinary people face steep barriers to fairness when litigation becomes dominated by expensive lawyers and procedural tricks rather than straightforward resolution.
He expanded on that grievance with a pointed observation about access to court: “Lawyers file frivolous lawsuits intended to use the system as a punishment, financially draining their adversaries with a process that is formatted to require a specialist lawyer just to participate,” he wrote. “Show up without a lawyer, and you aren’t even allowed to present an argument. Justice is denied to anybody who doesn’t pay for it.” Those words echo a long‑running conservative complaint that the legal system can favor those with money and training over average citizens.
The controversy over Bray’s comment unfolded as litigation over Wyoming’s abortion laws continued through the courts, drawing strong reactions on both sides. Bray, who sits on the Powell City Council, is one of several local officials to weigh in publicly, and his remarks forced a moment of reckoning about how elected leaders express outrage while respecting the rule of law.
Republicans who share concerns about judicial activism should push for clear, lawful fixes—electing judges where possible, supporting reforms that improve accountability, and using the ballot box rather than threats. At the same time, credible public debate depends on elected officials keeping their rhetoric within bounds, making it clear that even when institutions frustrate us, change must come through peaceful, constitutional channels.
He did not immediately respond to requests for comment, leaving the episode to fester in local debate about accountability, free speech, and the proper boundaries of political expression in a small Wyoming community.
