Wyoming’s laws governing landlord–tenant relationships are some of the least modernized in the country.  This leaves thousands of renters — especially young adults living off-campus at the University of Wyoming — vulnerable to situations they are not emotionally, legally, or developmentally prepared to navigate.

Reform is not about punishing landlords.

Reform is about ensuring safety, dignity, and clarity for everyone who rents a roof over their head.

The Core Issue

Wyoming relies heavily on individual lease language instead of establishing broad statutory tenant protections.

That creates large gray areas where:

• privacy is not clearly protected
• boundaries can be inconsistently interpreted 
• intimidation can occur without clear statutory enforcement pathways
• actions that may feel retaliatory to tenants can be framed as standard business decisions 
• the burden shifts entirely onto the renter to prove wrongdoing

When laws rely on ambiguity, power shapes outcomes — not consistency. 

What Modernization Could Look Like

Wyoming does not need complicated or extreme legislation.

Simple baseline updates would immediately protect renters while still respecting property ownership rights.

Needed reforms include:

• explicit statutory privacy protections inside the dwelling
• clear written notice requirements for ALL non-emergency entry
• clearly defined anti-retaliation protections with enforceable pathways 
• standardized lease language minimums for fair housing consistency
• codified tenant rights for communication to remain in writing

These are not radical concepts.

They are standard in many states.

Why This Matters for a University State

The majority of off-campus renters around the University of Wyoming are 18–24 years old. Many are in their first lease. Some are far from home and do not have family to protect or guide them.

Law should not default to the assumption that every tenant is a seasoned, savvy adult with equal power and leverage.

Young adults deserve safeguards that prevent harmful situations before they occur  — not remedies after damage is done.

One of the most troubling aspects of my case is how the defense argued that a single “permission to enter” checkbox on a maintenance request form allowed my landlord to walk into my home at any moment — even during obviously private and vulnerable situations.

This interpretation defies basic common sense.

Permission is always contextual.

It is never a blank check.

Just because someone has general permission to enter a home does not mean they can ignore clear indicators of privacy such as:

• bathroom use
   
• showering
   
• dressing
   
• sleeping
   
• sexual activity
   
• and any situation where a person is unable to respond or protect themselves
   

We understand this intuitively in every other part of life. A housekeeper cannot enter a hotel room simply because the guest didn’t place a “Do Not Disturb” sign. A repair worker cannot walk in if they hear someone in the shower. Consent must be honored in context, not interpreted as unlimited access.

Yet in my case, Wyoming’s laws - some of the most outdated and ambiguous in the country - allowed the defense to argue that a pre-checked dropdown on a form outweighed the universal expectation of privacy, modesty, and bodily autonomy.

This is not reasonable.

This is not ethical.

And in most states, it would not be legal.

It highlights a dangerous gap in Wyoming tenant law:
the idea that “permission” can override basic decency and dignity when a person is clearly exposed or vulnerable. No tenant should ever have to fear that a simple maintenance request means their landlord can walk into the bathroom while they’re nude. The law must acknowledge what every reasonable person already knows:  permission to enter is not permission to violate privacy.

Wyoming has unusually sparse case law when it comes to tenant rights, privacy violations, and emotional distress claims. In states like this, judges are expected to rely on persuasive case law from other states — especially within the same federal circuit — to interpret vague statutes and ensure fair treatment.

My attorney cited multiple cases from states within the 10th Circuit that directly address situations where a private individual is harmed by someone in a position of power. These cases guide judges on:

• how to weigh evidence when a victim is alone with the perpetrator
   
• the increased responsibility courts have when one party holds disproportionate power
   
• why attorney fees against a victim should be minimized to avoid discouraging others from coming forward
   

These are standard legal principles used across the country when state law is unclear.

The judge’s response was simply:

“I'm not familiar with these cases" and "none are from Wyoming.”

This was not a neutral observation — it was a choice that allowed her to disregard the protections other courts use to prevent exactly what happened to me: a victim being punished, bankrupted, and silenced because the opposing party had far more resources.

By refusing to consider persuasive authority, the court created a situation where:

• victims cannot safely report misconduct
   
• powerful landlords and insurance companies remain shielded
   
• judges can deny relief simply because Wyoming has fewer precedents
   
• fee awards become punitive, not protective
   
• the absence of Wyoming case law becomes an excuse to avoid fairness
   

This leaves tenants — especially LGBTQ+ tenants, young people, low-income renters, and people living alone — extremely vulnerable. Without persuasive authority, Wyoming courts operate in a vacuum. Judges are free to ignore well-established legal standards that almost every other state uses to ensure justice.

The result is a legal system where the people most at risk have the fewest protections, and where coming forward can cost you more than staying silent.

What happened to me isn’t just a personal injustice — it exposes a structural gap in Wyoming’s judiciary that harms anyone without power, legal knowledge, or financial support. And until this gap is acknowledged and fixed, more people will slip through it.

How to Advocate for Change

Reform happens easiest when it is personal, not partisan.

You can:

• contact Wyoming legislators and share why reform matters
• email the House and Senate Judiciary committees during session
• write respectfully about why tenant privacy is not political — it is a basic human need 
• parents of UW students can speak up too — their kids deserve safety standards

Find your Wyoming representative:

https://wyoleg.gov/Legislators/

When enough voices say the same truth — laws evolve.

Our Commitment

This site exists not just to inform, but to push pressure upward — respectfully, constructively, and persistently — until basic tenant protection becomes standard in Wyoming.  Until young renters do not learn their rights only after harm.