by Sondra Wilson. Written July 22, 2026.
Wild Willpower PAC — Casework Hub
This page brings together the cases I am currently litigating, along with the historical and personal background needed to understand them.
I ran for Governor of Iowa with a comprehensive plan for the state's future—including reforms to a judicial system I believe is failing the people it is supposed to protect. Ironically, it was that same system that ultimately kept me off the ballot.
You can follow any of the below cases by clicking on the title or the image to open the corresponding article.
Case #1: Wilson v. Pate— Ballot Access Appeal
What this case asks: Can a court grant limited ballot-access relief when mandatory litigation burdens and extraordinary circumstances make compliance with the statutory deadline impossible?
Case #2: Wilson v. Reliable Street Inc., et al. — Civil-Rights Record Case
What this case asks: Can businesses knowingly submit false or materially misleading information to the Iowa Office of Civil Rights to defeat a discrimination complaint—and then claim absolute immunity from liability because the statements were made during an administrative proceeding? The defendants argue that Iowa’s absolute-privilege doctrine protects their submissions even if the statements were knowingly false or malicious.
On July 15, 2026, Judge Doyle granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Learn about the case and follow the appeal here:
Before Continuing:
The History Behind the Cases
The cases on this page did not arise in isolation. This section places them in context through a timeline of Iowa’s dark history of persecuting LGBT+ people, beginning in 1838, alongside my firsthand account and documentary exposé, showing how institutional harm and coercive practices continue in local communities and courtrooms across Iowa. To heal our beloved state, we must first recognize the unresolved trauma left by our broken past, then move forward together—committing ourselves to build a just and accountable system for the generations to come.
Case #3: Wilson v. Trump et al. — Federal Case Over Medicaid Rights Violations and Color-of-Law Crimes
What this case asks: When public officials allegedly use governmental power to willfully deprive citizens of federally protected rights, will the criminal and civil laws enacted to address those acts be enforced?
A direct follow-up to Wilson v. State of Iowa and Kim Reynolds for Iowa (2024), this federal case alleges Medicaid-rights deprivation, campaign-related defamation, conspiracy against rights, and color-of-law crimes targeting transgender Iowans.
Although Donald Trump is named as a defendant, the case also names more than ninety members of the Republican Party of Iowa. My filings allege that public officials and political actors did not merely change policy. I allege that they willfully used governmental power to deprive transgender Iowans of federally protected rights.
Sections 241 and 242 of Title 18 establish federal crimes involving conspiracy against rights and willful deprivation of rights under color of law. Sections 1985 and 1986 of Title 42 provide civil causes of action in qualifying circumstances involving conspiracies to interfere with civil rights and failure to prevent them.
I submitted a criminal civil-rights complaint and filed a related federal civil petition in 2025. Judge Locher later identified defects in my petition. Because of the demands of Wilson v. Reliable Street Inc., et al., I have not yet had sufficient time to prepare the amended federal petition.
The case therefore presents a larger question: whether conduct alleged to constitute federal color-of-law crimes will be investigated and prosecuted, and whether the civil remedies Congress created will be meaningfully available to those whose rights were deprived.
Rights were violated.
Federal crimes are alleged.
The laws exist.
The question is whether they will be enforced.