The state must move forward with certifying residential property tax values, a Laramie County judge ruled Friday, overriding the State Board of Equalization’s refusal to approve numbers it says were warped by a new tax limit. The decision removes a potential hurdle to local governments collecting 2026 property tax revenue, but it sets the stage for a constitutional fight over a law the Legislature adopted in 2024.
The dispute centers on a 4% cap the Legislature created two years ago to ease rising residential tax bills. The Board concluded this limit—structured as an exemption—produced widespread inconsistencies in assessments, including many instances where higher-market homes ended up with lower taxable values than cheaper homes. That, the board said, violated its duty to ensure assessment uniformity.
After the board announced it would not certify residential land or improvement values, Gov. Mark Gordon asked the attorney general to sue the board and to seek an immediate court order requiring certification while the legal challenge proceeds. On Thursday the state filed an emergency motion; on Friday Laramie County District Court Judge Nathaniel Hibben granted it.
France moves to ban under-15s from social media: lawmakers rush to pass before school
Horoscope picks for today: signs facing big shifts on July 9, 2026
Hibben told the court the board’s legal objections can be decided only by a judge, not by the board itself, and signaled the underlying constitutional questions will be resolved through the courts. He allowed the board to include a statement in its certifications noting that it is complying “pursuant to this order” and to record any constitutional concerns alongside the certified values.
The attorney general’s office argued the board exceeded its authority by effectively declining to enforce a statute it suspects is unconstitutional, and urged the court to require the Board to perform its duties under existing law. The Board’s lawyer countered that the state had not met the strict standard needed for emergency relief and that compelling certification weeks before the Board’s statutory deadline would upend the status quo.
Legal observers say the ruling preserves immediate tax collection for local governments but does not decide whether the 4% mechanism is constitutionally permissible. That question will unfold in the coming weeks.
Why this matters now
Local governments rely heavily on residential property levies to fund services. A failure to certify values could have blocked collection of 2026 residential property taxes, affecting school budgets, road maintenance, sewer projects and public safety.
- Short-term effect: Counties can proceed with tax rolls once certifications are filed, avoiding an immediate revenue gap.
- Constitutional issue: The Board says the exemption-style cap creates nonuniform assessments; the state disputes the Board’s authority to refuse certification on that basis.
- Process to watch: The court allowed the Board to note its concerns in the certification while the case continues; a further hearing is scheduled for July 6.
- Deadlines: The Board has a statutory certification deadline (Aug. 3) for these values; the emergency order accelerates action now.
Supporters of the cap framed it as necessary relief for homeowners facing rapidly rising assessments. The Board and some county assessors say the cap’s exemption format distorts the uniform valuation principle enshrined in the state constitution, producing the so-called value “inversions” the Board documented in a recent report.
The court’s interim order does not settle which side is right. Instead it temporarily forces a procedural outcome—certification—while leaving substantive constitutional review to the judiciary. That keeps tax collections on track for now but preserves the prospect of further litigation and possible appeals that could alter the law’s application.
For residents and local officials, the immediate takeaway is practical: tax notices and budgets can move forward. For policymakers and lawyers, the case raises deeper questions about how Wyoming balances taxpayer relief with constitutional requirements for equal and uniform assessments.
