ATTACKS ON UTAH’S JUDICIARY
What’s happening and why it matters
Utah’s Legislature is advancing a coordinated set of bills that weaken the independence of the courts. Individually, each proposal is framed as a technical fix. Together, they represent a power grab that shifts control of the judicial branch into political hands.
Courts exist to apply the law fairly and to stop unconstitutional government action. When lawmakers interfere with how courts are structured, staffed, or disciplined because they dislike outcomes, they undermine the rule of law itself.
This is not about judges protecting themselves. It’s about whether everyday Utahns still have a fair place to challenge government overreach.
THE CORE PROBLEM
This is retaliation
Recent court decisions on redistricting, ballot initiatives, abortion, and other high-stakes issues angered legislative leaders. Instead of accepting checks and balances, lawmakers are now attempting to:
• control which judges hear sensitive cases
• make judges easier to punish for unpopular decisions
• concentrate appointment power in political offices
• reduce meaningful review of government action
As lawyers, we accept that not every case goes our way. Labeling every unfavorable ruling “judicial activism” is not a legal argument. It’s a political one.
BILL-BY-BILL: WHAT TO SAY AND WHY IT MATTERS
HB 392 – Constitutional Court Amendments
Creates a new “Constitutional Court”
What it does
• Creates a special court to hear constitutional challenges to state laws
• Allows the Attorney General or Legislature to pull “important” cases into this court
• Gives the Governor control over appointing judges to it
• Provides no clear right to appeal like other courts
Why it matters
• It lets politicians choose the court for politically sensitive cases
• It undermines the right to appeal and equal treatment under the law
• It removes constitutional cases from normal, independent courts
• It weakens the judiciary’s role as a check on government power
HB 262 – Judicial Election Amendments
Raises the retention threshold to 67%
What it does
• Requires judges to receive at least 67% approval to stay on the bench
Why it matters
• Makes judges easier to target with political campaigns
• Turns judicial retention into a culture-war battlefield
• Encourages judges to rule with political consequences in mind
HJR 5 – Judicial Nominations
Lets the Governor bypass the nominating commission
What it does
• Allows the Governor to appoint judges without using the judicial nominating commission
• Removes safeguards designed to prioritize qualifications over loyalty
Why it matters
• Concentrates power in one political office
• Weakens Utah’s merit-based judicial system
• Makes judges more vulnerable to partisan expectations
Courts work best when judges are chosen for competence, not political loyalty.
HJR 13 – Judicial Retention
Lets the Legislature trigger special retention elections
What it does
• Allows lawmakers to call special elections against judges they decide are “unfit”
• Lets the Legislature define the process and standards
Why it matters
• Gives politicians a weapon against judges they disagree with
• Duplicates existing discipline systems already in place
• Permanently alters the Constitution to weaken judicial independence
If lawmakers can threaten judges for unpopular rulings, the courts stop being independent.
SB 134 – Court Expansion
Expands the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
What it does
• Adds two Supreme Court justices
• Adds two Court of Appeals judges
• Adds multiple district judges
Why it matters
• Happens during open conflict between lawmakers and the courts
• Raises concerns about motive, not just workload
• Risks undermining public trust in judicial neutrality
Changing the size of the courts in the middle of political conflict looks like influence, not efficiency.
SJR 3 – Control Over the Practice of Law
Limits court and Bar authority
What it does
• Restricts how the Utah Supreme Court and State Bar use licensing fees
• Prevents funding of programs that support access to justice
Why it matters
• Shifts power from courts to the Legislature
• Weakens legal services that help everyday Utahns
• Undermines judicial self-governance
This chips away at the courts’ ability to manage the justice system and serve the public.
BIG PICTURE TALKING POINTS
• Courts are supposed to be independent. That’s how they protect people from abuse of power.
• Disagreeing with a court decision does not justify changing the rules.
• Politicians should not get to pick their judges, their courts, or their outcomes.
• Checks and balances exist to protect the public, not politicians.
• Justice should be decided by law, not by political pressure.
• If courts can’t stop unconstitutional laws, no one can.