Wyoming Airport Ad Rejections
Case Name: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Rock Springs-Sweetwater County Airport Board, and Devon Brubaker, in his official capacity as the Director of Southwest Wyoming Regional Airport
Index Number: 2:24-cv-00118-KHR
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming
In June 2022, PETA submitted an anti-leather advertisement proposal to airports including Jackson Hole Airport (JAC) and Southwest Wyoming Regional Airport’s (SWRA) in Wyoming. The ad was intended to prompt travelers to consider the animals who suffer in the leather industry and encourage travelers to refrain from purchasing luggage derived from cruel treatment of animals. Both airports rejected the ad—SWRA cited a “policy” against “controversial” advertisements, while JAC declined without elaboration.
PETA Convinces Jackson Hole Airport to Surrender
Pro bono outside counsel helped submit public records requests on PETA’s behalf to understand the airports’ rejections. In an October 2022 response, JAC claimed not to have an advertising policy. Instead, JAC claimed that it had no capacity to run the ad. Instead, it could only offer space for brochures. Documents produced by JAC, however, told a different story—and provided strong evidence of viewpoint discrimination. In a June 2022 exchange, an airport staffer forwarded PETA’s ad to an assistant airport director, complaining that “this is the type of artwork that we could expect from PETA. I support their work, but dang it, why does that bag have to look so much like mine. ☹” She closed her email by admitting “I have a feeling we’ll have space.” Her supervisor responded five minutes later: “I just walked past the cow hid chairs reading this email . . . Not sure this message is quite right.”
Despite its defiant tone, PETA decided to call JAC’s bluff. That same month, PETA counsel again emailed JAC asking to run its same artwork as a brochure. JAC responded days later, reversing its decision and agreeing to run PETA’s ad.
PETA Files First Amendment Lawsuit Against SWRA
PETA received responses to its public records requests from SWRA as well. These responses told an even more brazen story of viewpoint discrimination that eventually resulted in a June 2025 lawsuit filed by PETA against the airport. PETA’s lawsuit alleged that SWRA unconstitutionally rejected the ad under a vague and inherently viewpoint-discriminatory purported advertising policy.
As alleged in PETA’s complaint, SWRA had historically promoted the sale of guns and shooting supplies as well as rodeos, hunting, and other industries that kill animals. But Airport Director Devon Brubaker remarked during a recorded board meeting that he thought the content of PETA’s ad was “less than appropriate for a family environment.” So, after deciding to reject the ad, Brubaker asked other airports in the region to provide sample advertising policies, copied those policies—which prohibited ads dealing with “social, political, religious, or rhetorical issues”—and slapped SWRA’s name to the top. Brubaker then cited that brand-new “policy” as a post-hoc basis to reject PETA’s ad. The lawsuit noted that the policy’s sweeping prohibitions gave SWRA unfettered discretion as to how and when to apply the policy.
That wasn’t all. As a result of its public records requests and independent research, PETA’s counsel learned that SWRA had never previously denied a formally submitted advertisement. Instead, SWRA had a history of displaying ads that would have violated its purported policy. These included ads for tobacco, liquor, and cannabis products, ads featuring firearms, and ads featuring religious content. Even more ironically, these also included promotion of animal exploitation—such as ads celebrating rodeos, and various displays promoting hunting. This research also revealed that SWRA’s media displays included other forms of controversial content, including Fox News coverage of Gaza protests.
Following these revelations, PETA counsel attempted to appeal SWRA’s decision to decline PETA’s ad. In January 2023, Brubaker told PETA counsel that it was “free to appeal,” but that there was no advertising space available. SWRA was largely nonresponsive to PETA’s attempts to appeal, despite PETA reiterating its willingness to wait to purchase advertising space “whenever it becomes available.”
PETA Secures a Favorable Settlement
SWRA did not move to dismiss, and filed an Answer in July 2024. During discovery, SWRA admitted that its advertising space constitutes a limited public forum.
In February 2025, the SWRA Board agreed, as part of a mediated settlement, to run PETA’s proposed anti-leather ad on the same terms offered to other advertisers. SWRA also agreed to language in a court order requiring it to treat PETA advertising the same as other advertisers in the future. As part of the settlement, PETA also received $35,000 in legal fees from the airport.
PETA arranged for the ad to run for six months, starting in April 2025, to encourage travelers to avoid luggage derived from animal products.
