Pair of proposed bills could limit challenges to Utah laws in courts
SALT LAKE CITY () — A pair of bills being could have a significant impact on legal challenges to laws passed by the Utah legislature.
, titled 'Suspensive Appeal Amendments,' specifies that trial court injunctions — which put laws on hold until they're ruled on — would go away as soon as an appeal to that lower court's ruling was filed with the Utah Supreme Court. If S.B. 204 is passed, that would mean that any law being challenged over its constitutionality could stay in effect until the Supreme Court makes a ruling.
, otherwise known as 'Judicial Standing Amendments,' could have more far-reaching effects, as it would narrow the criteria for who is eligible to have to bring civil actions against the legislature.
Controversial bill requiring mailed ballots to be returned in person with ID advances
Under the proposal, only parties who are in a 'legal relationship' — such as a marriage, parent-child relationship, guardianship, or conservatorship — would be allowed to bring civil actions. An association would still be able to file on behalf of its members, as long as the members meet certain requirements.
S.B. 203 also gives new powers to Utah's Attorney General's Office to file civil actions of 'significant public importance' without qualifications for standing.
Senate leaders — as well as the sponsor of both of these proposals, Sen. Brady Brammer (R – Pleasant Grove) — defended the bills, arguing S.B. 204 is about speeding up the court process and creating a clear separation of powers.
'If there's a law in place… if the law is going to be enjoined or overturned or anything like that, we just want to ensure that it gets to the top and actually the Supreme Court who is tasked with administering the judicial branch that they're the ones making that policy decision where that separation of powers is appropriate,' said Sen. Majority leader Kirk Cullimore (R – Draper).
Asst. Majority Whip, Sen. Mike McKell (R – Spanish Fork), who is also an attorney, argued that the change on injunctions was needed for efficiency.
'It's a slow process and I think that's frustrating,' McKell said. 'I think it's frustrating to lawmakers, it's frustrating to my clients, it's frustrating to [Cullimore's clients] but we want efficiency, we want decisions quicker.'
The pair were also asked about whether the bills were aimed at Utah's abortion trigger ban. That law is currently on hold via an injunction while the Utah Supreme Court weighs its constitutionality. The abortion trigger ban was initially blocked by a lower court, leaving abortions legal in Utah up until 18 weeks of pregnancy.
Laws redrawing political boundaries, as well as laws regarding transgender girls playing in girls' sports were also halted by lower courts — and some remain unsettled.
Mckell said he didn't know if this bill was in response to the trigger ban.
In a statement, Sen. Brammer argued the lower courts have 'overused' injunctions.
'In this state and in our courts, it has long been the policy to presume laws are constitutional, with doubts resolved in favor of constitutionality. S.B. 204 seeks to ensure that legal tools are used in a way that respects the roles of all three branches of government while also addressing concerns about the overuse of injunctions by courts to block laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. I believe this will help protect the integrity of the process of upholding the rule of law in Utah,' he said.
On S.B. 204 and the issue of third-party standing, Brammer argued plaintiffs must show harm.
'As Chief Justice Durrant recently noted, 'Since our state's founding, we have required that plaintiffs show … a personal stake in the outcome of [each] legal dispute,'' Brammer said. 'S.B. 203 seeks to maintain access to the justice system for individuals with grievances while protecting the integrity of the courts and helping prevent them from becoming a forum de jour for out-of-state interests that cannot meet the traditional standing requirements.'
However, local defense attorney Greg Skordas told ABC4.com that these two bills would have a significant impact on the legal community.
'Senate Bill 203 is an attempt by the legislature to make it harder for groups to challenge the constitutionality of laws they pass. It narrows the definition of individuals or groups who are eligible, (having 'standing') to file a lawsuit contesting the constitutionality of legislation,' he said.
'Both bills are likely unconstitutional and will likely be challenged soon after they are enacted,' Skordas said.
He was also critical of the legislature's decision to tweak the judiciary.
'These are the kind of bills that cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars to defend (and ultimately lose) in court,' he said. 'It's really a knee-jerk reaction to our courts and some recent decisions pausing the implementation of questionable legislation until the constitutionality of that legislation can be determined.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Washington's Supreme Court slashes public defender caseload limits
(Photo by) The state Supreme Court on Monday responded to a 'crisis' in Washington's public defense system by slashing caseloads for those providing counsel to poor defendants facing criminal prosecutions. Justices unanimously agreed to set the new statewide standards, which call for public defenders to handle a maximum of 47 felony cases or 120 misdemeanor cases in a year, depending on one's primary area of practice. The current thresholds are 150 felonies and 400 misdemeanors. The group that represents Washington counties says the new standards are unattainable with the level of funding now available and due to a shortage of lawyers. Under the court's interim order, the new caseload limits take effect Jan. 1, 2026 and should be achieved 'as soon as reasonably possible' and no later than 10 years, Chief Justice Debra Stephens wrote in the four-page order. 'The crisis in the provision of indigent criminal defense services throughout our state requires action now,' Stephens wrote for the majority. Monday's decision is a potential game-changer in the state's effort to shore up a beleaguered public defense system that struggles to provide timely, equitable and effective counsel. 'It's a bold move. I didn't expect justices to go this far,' said Larry Jefferson, director of the state's Office of Public Defense. Jefferson warned justices 18 months ago the system was on the 'verge of collapse' as cases piled up, trials backed up and over-stressed attorneys retired or resigned to work in higher-paying, less stressful jobs. He appealed to the justices for help. 'This is one of the first times that public defenders have been listened to,' Jefferson said. Some counties have had to release those accused of crimes due to the lack of available defense counsel. The ACLU of Washington sued Yakima County last year for failing to appoint attorneys for indigent people charged with crimes. Hiring more public defenders costs money. Cities and counties worry they also will need to amp up hiring of court staff and prosecutors to keep pace and that will be expensive. 'What they are describing here is impossible with our current budget constraints,' said Derek Young, executive director of the Washington State Association of Counties. 'There's not nearly enough workforce now. If we triple the demand for services, where will all these lawyers come from?' 'There is no timeline we can accommodate this absent the Legislature waking up' and providing greater financial support, he said. The new state budget provides $20 million for counties, he said, which is about 6% of their total public defense costs. Standards the state Supreme Court adopted in 2012 said a full-time public defense attorney or assigned counsel should have no more than 150 felony cases a year. In 2023, the American Bar Association, the National Center for State Courts and the RAND Justice Policy Program released the National Public Defense Workload Study. It concluded public defenders should handle far fewer cases. That year, Washington's high court asked the Washington State Bar Association to weigh in on whether the cap needed adjusting in light of the findings. The association responded in March 2024, recommending new maximums of 47 felony credits or 120 misdemeanor credits in a year, depending on the severity of the charges. The reduction would be phased in over three years. Under that approach, the cap for felony cases would be 120 in the first year, 90 in the second and 47 in the third. For misdemeanors, the limit would be 280 cases in the first year, dropping to 225 and then 120. As part of its proposal, the association assigned crimes credits based on seriousness and complexity of providing a legal defense. A motor vehicle theft was assigned one credit and a murder seven, for example. That means a lawyer could theoretically be assigned 47 vehicle theft or seven homicide cases in a year before hitting their limit. Such case weighting is 'permissible and encouraged' but not required, Stephens wrote for the court. If done, a local government should adopt and publish any policies and procedures underlying the use of such weighting, Stephens wrote. The Supreme Court started accepting public comment on the bar association's request to trim caseloads a year ago, while also holding public hearings and internal work sessions. In each hearing, prosecutors argued reducing caseloads would lead to filing of fewer cases to ensure no one's rights to counsel are violated. 'Without sufficient attorneys or without sufficient resources, it would lead to a de facto decriminalization and an increase in vigilantism,' Russell Brown, executive director of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said in September. He added that 'way too many' people have had their cases dismissed or not filed because of a lack of public defenders. Supporters of reducing caseloads said in the hearings that the change is needed to stabilize the system. They contend that large caseloads and low pay are driving people out of public defense and deterring new lawyers from entering this line of legal work. And they, too, pointed to the problem in some counties where those accused of crimes, but unable to afford a lawyer, can wait long periods of time before they receive counsel. 'Public defense is in a downward spiral. We can fix this,' said Jason Schwarz, director of the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense and chair of the Washington State Bar Association's Council on Public Defense in September. 'This will be expensive. Justice is not cheap.' The order issued Monday isn't the final word. New rules are needed to put the caseload figures in place. And the bar association made other recommendations on subjects like staffing and training that justices are still considering. But the justices wanted to put out caseload information because they knew local governments are putting together their budgets for next year, Stephens wrote in the order.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Americans are starting to learn who ‘Maryland father' Abrego Garcia really is
For a while, the favored moniker for Kilmar Abrego Garcia in the media was 'Maryland father.' Abrego Garcia was indeed living in Maryland and was indeed a father, but this wasn't what was most distinctive thing about him. There are hundreds of thousands of fathers living in the state who aren't illegal immigrants and don't have ties to criminal gangs. Abrego Garcia, of course, is the man who was mistakenly deported to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador despite a judge's order that he couldn't be deported there. Instead of quickly asking for Abrego Garcia to be sent back to the United States, the Trump administration dug in its heels and suffered repeated legal setbacks, including at the Supreme Court. Sensing political opportunity and appalled at the notion of someone living in the US being sent, based on no criminal charges, to perhaps the most inhumane prison in the Western Hemisphere, Democrats made Abrego Garcia a cause. They inevitably downplayed the drip-drip evidence that he was an unsympathetic character. It emerged that he had been picked up by local police in 2019 at a Home Depot years ago and the cops suspected that he and his associates were gang members. It emerged that his wife accused him of abusing her. It emerged that he'd been stopped in Tennessee in suspicious circumstances in 2022 with multiple men in the vehicle. Whether Abrego Garcia was a good guy or a reprobate, a member of MS-13 or of his church choir, had no bearing on whether he should have been imprisoned in El Salvador with our active support. The answer to that was 'no' regardless, but now that the Trump administration has brought him back to the United States and filed charges against him, the 'Maryland father' description has been exposed as ludicrously inapt. According to a Department of Justice indictment, Abrego Garcia routinely engaged in human smuggling, transporting illegal aliens within the United States on more than 100 occasions. The facts set out in the indictment regarding the Tennessee traffic stop are particularly damning. Abrego Garcia's story was that the men in his Suburban had been working construction in St. Louis for two weeks and he was bringing them back to Maryland. The men, all lacking identification, had no luggage or construction tools. The vehicle was outfitted with a makeshift third row for passengers in the back. All of which was suspicious enough. What's more, the indictment says, license-plate tracking data showed that the car hadn't been anywhere close to St. Louis in the past year. It had, however, been in the Houston, Texas, area, where the prosecutors say the illegal-alien passengers had been picked up. The administration will have to prove its charges in court, and if they have been exaggerated in the cause of nailing Abrego Garcia, that will presumably be exposed. The facts matter, and Abrego Garcia never should have been made into a mere symbol. The administration seemed to think keeping him in El Salvador somehow furthered the cause of immigration enforcement, but whether Abrego Garcia stayed there or came back to the United States wasn't going to materially affect deportation efforts one way or the other. For their part, Trump's critics — yet again — assumed because someone was targeted by the president, he or she must be a figure of righteousness. The fact of the matter is that Abrego Garcia never should have been in the United States in the first place. He came here illegally in 2012. Only after he was picked up by police in the aforementioned 2019 stop and put in deportation proceedings did he make a meritless asylum claim. An immigration judge nevertheless granted him a withholding of removal and Abrego Garcia was permitted to go about his business, which, according to the Justice Department, was smuggling other illegal immigrants. We'll learn more as the case proceeds, but we know enough already to conclude that this isn't a typical or commendable Marylander. Twitter: @RichLowry
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
California to Sue Over ‘Illegal and Unconstitutional' Use of Troops
Donald Trump has been making a habit of invoking emergency powers to provide legal justification for unprecedented actions, ranging from launching a global trade war without the assent of Congress to using a two century-old wartime law to deprive undocumented immigrants of due process in an effort to deport them. In both cases, legal experts said there was no suitable emergency in the first place, and that the actions violated the letter of the laws being cited. (Also in both examples, litigation ensued that will likely end up before a Supreme Court that's demonstrated a keen willingness to expand presidential power.) So when it comes to the Republican president's latest gambit—invoking yet another emergency power to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles—California Governor Gavin Newsom says Trump has gone and done it again. The state said it is suing the administration for what it calls the illegal deployment of its troops—which the Democratic governor condemned as ' illegal and unconstitutional.'
