Wyoming lawmakers are pushing a bill that would let residents sue foreign governments for trying to censor their speech, even as legal experts warn the state may be picking a fight it cannot legally win.
Story Snapshot
- Wyoming House Bill 70, called the GRANITE Act, blocks state courts from enforcing foreign censorship judgments.
- The bill lets Wyoming residents and businesses sue foreign governments or groups that try to punish their speech.
- The House passed the bill 46-12, and a Senate committee later gave it a “do-pass” recommendation.
- Legal analysts say federal sovereign immunity law may block the lawsuit provision entirely.
- A Wyoming committee chairman reportedly said he could not explain what the scaled-back bill would actually accomplish.
A State Shield Against Foreign Speech Rulings
House Bill 70, introduced in February 2026, tells Wyoming courts they cannot recognize or enforce a foreign judgment that punishes protected speech. The bill text also stops state agencies and employees from cooperating with foreign censorship orders, including requests tied to speech-related extradition. Supporters call this the “shield” part of the law, meant to stop foreign rulings from reaching into Wyoming courts or agencies.
The bill’s second piece, the “sword,” creates a private right of action. It would let Wyoming residents and businesses sue foreign governments or international bodies that try to impose censorship on them. Backers describe the design as pairing a defensive block with offensive legal leverage, aiming to deter foreign regulators from targeting American speakers in the first place.
Momentum Through the Legislature
The bill moved fast. Wyoming’s House passed it 46-12 on February 23, 2026, a lopsided vote showing real support for the underlying idea. A Senate committee later advanced the measure with sponsors testifying it works as both “shield and sword” against foreign censorship rulings. But the bill reportedly stalled afterward, meaning it remains an unfinished proposal rather than enacted law.
Lawyers Warn the Sword May Be Dull
Legal groups say the lawsuit provision runs into a wall Wyoming cannot tear down. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the International Organizations Immunities Act already shield foreign governments and bodies like the European Commission from being sued in U.S. courts. Under the Supremacy Clause, a state legislature cannot rewrite that federal protection, no matter how popular the goal.
The R Street Institute put it plainly: foreign affairs and international enforcement are federal matters, and no single state can stop a regulator like Ofcom from going after American platforms. That critique points to a real design problem. Wyoming reportedly softened the bill to defer to federal immunity rather than waive it, a change one committee chairman said left him unable to explain what the law would actually do.
A Fight Over Definitions, Not Just Jurisdiction
Part of the debate centers on what counts as “foreign censorship” in the first place. The bill’s language reaches beyond foreign laws to cover judgments, subpoenas, administrative orders, and formal demands with a “substantial effect” of restricting speech. That broad net could sweep in routine legal cooperation along with genuine censorship attempts, and the public record does not yet include a clear test for sorting one from the other.
Pleased to report that the Wyoming GRANITE Act has now passed out of committee, 4-1, and will be introduced in the 2027 session as a committee bill!
I gave testimony at the very beginning of the stream. Link to the stream:https://t.co/dxFGtRQE7u
— Preston Byrne (@prestonjbyrne) September 29, 2026
No Wyoming-specific case has surfaced publicly showing a resident or business already hurt by a foreign censorship judgment. That gap gives critics an opening to call the bill a response to an abstract threat rather than a documented local injury. Supporters counter that the bill is preventive, meant to block future harm before it happens rather than react to one.
Why People on Both Sides Are Watching
This fight taps into a wider frustration shared across the political spectrum: the sense that distant, unaccountable powers, whether foreign regulators or federal agencies, can reach into ordinary people’s lives with little local recourse. Wyoming’s attempt to draw a line, even an imperfect one, reflects that same instinct many Americans feel toward government and institutions generally, regardless of which party holds power.
Whether the GRANITE Act becomes a national model or a cautionary tale depends on what happens next in Wyoming’s Senate and whether Congress takes up a similar federal version. For now, the bill stands as a test case for how far a single state can go in defending its residents from foreign legal reach, even when federal law may have the final word.
My testimony in Wyoming today on the Wyoming GRANITE Act (passed out of committee, 4-1).
"Inside is a letter from the British threatening you with prison for exercising your 1st Amendment rights online. This is novel international tyranny and extortion."https://t.co/gABT2H9rKz pic.twitter.com/XACOIv9itz
— Preston Byrne (@prestonjbyrne) September 29, 2026
Sources:
reclaimthenet.org, wyoleg.gov, wyomingnews.com, techpolicy.press, docs.reclaimthenet.org
