Utah State Bar claims 5 proposed judiciary reform bills may be ‘unconstitutional'
SALT LAKE CITY () — The Utah State Bar has openly come out against several bills that are moving through Utah's Capitol Hill that, if passed, would impact the role of the judiciary branch.
The Bar said the five bills – , , , , and – may be unconstitutional because they remove powers from the judicial branch and undermine the separation of powers.
All but one bill is sponsored by (R-Pleasant Grove). The remaining bill is sponsored by Rep. Jason Kyle (R-Huntsville).
A group of 32 lawyers penned a letter to Senate and House leadership expressing concerns alongside the bar and urging lawmakers to assess the long-term implications of the forms.
'Notably, these bills will accelerate the erosion of public confidence in our judicial system and threaten the right of access to the courts of individuals and associations, including many business associations critical to the economic health of the state,' the lawyers wrote.
The Utah State Bar said it has met with several legislators to express their concerns. These lawmakers have reportedly expressed a willingness to hear from lawyers and work with the Bar to find a resolution of the concerns.
The Utah State Bar said this bill restricts the current standards for individuals and associations to file legal action on behalf of injured parties. It also gives new powers to the Utah Attorney General's Office to file civil actions of 'significant public importance' without qualifications for standing.
Sen. Brammer, the bill's sponsor, said S.B. 203 would protect the integrity of the courts and help them from becoming a 'forum de jour' for out-of-state interests. It would also maintain access to the justice system for individuals with grievances.
The State Bar, however, argues the bill attempts to change long-standing common law principles of standing. Local defense attorney Greg Skordas that the bill is 'an attempt by the legislature to make it harder for groups to challenge the constitutionality of laws they pass.'
According to the Utah State Bar, S.B. 204 would create a right of 'suspensive appeal' for government defendants when a plaintiff challenging the constitutionality of a state law has been granted an injunction. The suspensive appeal would effectively remove the injunction at the request of the defendant.
'Defendants would be able to appeal a preliminary injunction straight to the Supreme Court and the law would not be enjoined during the pendency of the appeal,' The State Bar said. 'This adds new procedure to legal standards to the existing rule governing injunctions in the Utah Code. Additionally, it appears to usurp judicial authority by placing the status of the injunction in the hands of the defendant.'
Sen. Brammer saying it simply seeks to ensure that legal tools are used in a way that respects all three branches of the 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,' said Brammer.
The Utah State Bar said this resolution and bill work together to grant legislative auditors the authority to require the production of privileged information or information prepared in anticipation of litigation from individuals or entities subject to an audit by the legislative auditor.
'This legislation attempts to govern the practice of law by altering the nature of the attorney-client privilege and the ability for a government client to rely on the confidentiality of the communications with their counsel,' the State Bar argued.
Neither the bill nor resolution have been heard on the Senate floor as of Friday, Feb. 14.
The final bill the Utah State Bar has raised concerns over is H.B. 154, which would to retain a judge in judicial retention elections from 50% to 67%.
The Utah State Bar said this increase would be the highest in the nation, making it difficult to attract and retain qualified judges.
'This will allow outside and special interests to campaign against judges when they only have to convince one-third of the populace to vote against a judge,' said the Bar. 'No need to change what is a very successful and nationally recognized judicial retention process.'
Some Senate leaders previously expressed some doubt about the bill, which was proposed by Rep. Kyle.
Sen. Kirk Cullimore (R-Draper) he was aware of other states that have higher thresholds than Utah but was not sure the proposal passed constitutional muster based on retention elections.
'I guess it's not totally off the wall, I just haven't heard about it or thought about it in the context of Utah law or the Utah Constitution,' said Cullimore.
The list of bills seeking to make adjustments to the judicial branch comes at a time when Utah's legislative and judicial branches have been at odds.
In the summer of 2024, Utah's Supreme Court handed a blow to Utah's legislature, ruling that they when they gutted a citizen-led initiative to create an independent redistricting commission to draw new Congressional boundaries.
Utah's highest court said the move may have violated Utahn's right to 'alter and reform' their government but the case is still moving through the lower courts. House and Senate leaders both called the Supreme Court's decision 'one of the worst rulings' they have ever seen and promised judicial reforms.
The Utah legislature was dealt another blow when Utah Supreme Court justices from the 2024 November ballot. The Supreme Court argued that the legislature failed to meet a constitutionally required publication requirement, which was another decision that frustrated legislative leaders.
Lindsay Aerts contributed to this report.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Britain to allocate $116 billion to R&D in spending plan
LONDON (Reuters) -British finance minister Rachel Reeves will allocate 86 billion pounds ($116 billion) in this week's spending review to fund research and development, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) said on Sunday. It said the package, funding everything from new drug treatments and longer-lasting batteries to artificial intelligence breakthroughs, would be worth over 22.5 billion pounds a year by 2029/30, driving new jobs and economic growth. Reeves will divide more than 2 trillion pounds ($2.7 trillion) of public money between her ministerial colleagues on Wednesday, making choices that will define what the year-old Labour government can achieve in the next four years. The DSIT said the announcement on R&D follows Reeves' commitment last week to 15.6 billion pounds of government investment in local transport in city regions in the Northern England, Midlands and the South West. ($1 = 0.7398 pounds)
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Some Wyoming residents voice support for voter registration changes
CHEYENNE — Beginning July 1, Wyoming voters will be required to provide proof of state residency and U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, something Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray has been advocating for years. The move comes after the Wyoming Legislature passed House Bill 156 in February, a piece of legislation Gov. Mark Gordon let go into law without his signature. The public comment period for rules related to the change began May 5 and lasts until June 20. Wednesday afternoon, Gray's office held an in-person and virtual meeting to allow people to voice their opinions about the proposed rules. All attendees who spoke during the meeting expressed support for the new law, and made some minor recommendations for the Secretary of State to consider before a final version of the law is published. Wyoming voters will be required to be a state resident for at least 30 days before casting their ballots, and must present proof of residency and citizenship when registering to vote. Last year, a similar piece of legislation was approved by the Wyoming Legislature, but vetoed by Gordon on the grounds that the regulations exceeded Gray's legal authority. The 2025 legislation grants the Secretary of State that authority. 'Providing proof of United States citizenship and proof of residency has been a key priority of our administration,' Gray said Wednesday, 'and this rulemaking marks over a year-and-a-half-long standoff with Gov. Mark Gordon and myself concerning the need for documentary proof of citizenship and residency to ensure a reasonable means to follow our constitutional obligations of ensuring only U.S. citizens and only Wyomingites are voting in Wyoming elections.' Gray said the veto last year was very troubling, and there were a lot of inaccurate statements made by the governor. 'We didn't give up. We went to the Legislature, and the people won, weighing the governor back down, and the bill became law without his signature,' he said. Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, and the former chairman of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, a hardline group of Republican lawmakers, was the primary sponsor of the bill. He spoke during Wednesday's public hearing, saying this bill will build confidence in Wyoming elections. 'Prior to introducing this bill, we conducted a poll of likely voters in the state of Wyoming. It was a very scientific poll, and this particular issue had over 74% support, and we saw that as we traveled the state,' he said. Voter Meeting From left, Elena Campbell speaks on Zoom, while C.J. Young, Election Division director; Jesse Naiman, deputy secretary of state; and Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray listen during a public comment meeting about voter identification rules in the Capitol Extension on Wednesday. Platte County Clerk Malcolm Ervin, who also serves as chairman of the Wyoming County Clerks Association, weighed in Wednesday, as well, with a few minor suggested changes. One recommendation concerned the use of Wyoming student identification cards as a document to prove residency for voter registration. He suggested the ID cards be required to display the voter's legal name, not a chosen name. He said most of his concerns regarding the 2025 legislation were quelled by the fact that there is a 'last-ditch' effort that allows people to show proof of residency or citizenship if they don't have the required documentation to vote outlined in the new law. If someone doesn't have valid identification forms or lacks a Wyoming driver's license and a Social Security number to prove residency, they can provide other documentation, such as a utility bill, bank statement or a pay stub under the proposed rules. To prove U.S. citizenship, one must produce a document already outlined in law, including a Wyoming driver's license, Wyoming ID card, a valid U.S. passport, a certificate of U.S. citizenship, a certificate of naturalization, a U.S. military draft record or a Selective Service registration acknowledgement card, a consular report of birth abroad issued by the U.S. Department of State, or an original or certified copy of a birth certificate in the U.S. bearing an official seal. 'I want to be clear that we see that adaptation as a last-ditch effort, if we've exhausted all other options. It's our last option on the table, specifically to ensure nobody is disenfranchised from voting,' Ervin said. The other concern he had that was addressed in the new legislation is that post office boxes in Wyoming will only count as proof of residency if the person lists their residential address on their voter registration application form. Another virtual attendee spoke in favor of the new law. Mark Koep, chairman of the Crook County Republican Party, echoed Rep. Bear's statements of statewide support. 'Overwhelmingly, the voters of Wyoming — and I talk to a lot of people — support these rules that you have in place,' he said. 'And so, I just want to make that heard on this chat to the media in the room: the people of Wyoming want these rules.' Since 2000, there have been four convictions of voter fraud in Wyoming, according to The Heritage Foundation, all involving U.S. citizens. When the public comment period closes on June 20, it will once again be up to Gordon to accept or reject the proposed rules. Under Gray's proposed rules, a valid Wyoming driver's license will be adequate proof of identity, residency and U.S. citizenship, so long as it lists a Wyoming address. Tribal identification cards issued by either the Eastern Shoshone or Northern Arapaho tribes, or other federally recognized tribes, will also count as proof of residency if a Wyoming address is listed. If the applicant doesn't have the forms of identification present at the time of registration, they must provide on the voter registration application form their Wyoming driver's license number and one of any of the following documents: U.S. passport; a driver's license or ID card issued by the federal government, any state or outlying possession of the United States; a photo ID card issued by the University of Wyoming, a Wyoming community college, or a Wyoming public school; an ID card issued to a dependent of a member of the United States Armed Forces; or a tribal identification card issued by the governing body of the Eastern Shoshone tribe of Wyoming, the Northern Arapaho tribe of Wyoming or other federally recognized Indian tribe. These documents would also need to list a Wyoming address to prove state residency. If a person seeking to register to vote doesn't have a valid driver's license, they must provide the last four digits of their Social Security number, along with one of the previously mentioned documents in the proposed rules. None of the documents will suffice if the applicant is not a U.S. citizen. Online comments on the proposed rules can continue to be submitted by email to the Secretary of State's chief policy officer and general counsel, Joe Rubino, at until June 20.
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
Critics want U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi disbarred, but at what cost?
The Florida Bar on Friday dismissed a complaint brought by a coalition of about 70 liberal-leaning and moderate law professors, attorneys and former Florida Supreme Court justices against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. The complaint accuses Bondi, Florida's former attorney general, of violating her ethical duties in her current job. As the Miami Herald reported, the complaint claims Bondi 'has sought to compel Department of Justice lawyers to violate their ethical obligations under the guise of 'zealous advocacy.'' While Bondi may have violated ethical rules — that's unclear — disbarring a U.S. attorney general is extreme and could be a slippery slope. The move would no doubt be seen, perhaps rightfully so, as political retribution, and that would only add more fuel to the raging dumpster fire of our partisan politics these days. The complaint outlined three instances in which the coalition said Bondi's conduct violated Florida Bar rules and longstanding norms of the Justice Department. In one instance, they said, she fired a seasoned immigration lawyer who the Trump administration said sabotaged the case in the mistaken deportation of a Maryland man to El Salvador. Another instance cited: A longtime federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia resigned rather than carry out enforcement orders that she said were unsupported by evidence. A third example: Several senior federal prosecutors in New York and Washington resigned after they refused to follow a Justice Department order to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. The Bar rejected the complaint Friday, as it had done with two previous complaints about Bondi by the same group, and cited a jurisdictional issue. It said it 'does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office.' The group includes two retired Florida Supreme Court justices, Barbara J. Pariente and Peggy A. Quince. Make no mistake: Bondi is deeply political. And she has shown her commitment to carry out President Donald Trump's agenda at all costs. Bondi has made it clear that the president's priorities and the DOJ's mission are, in her view, one and the same. This is a break in the fire wall that has long existed between the presidency and the Justice Department. But politicizing the law — or the Bar — isn't the answer, no matter which side is doing it. Ethical standards must be enforced. That's a cornerstone of the legal profession. But it's hypocritical to condemn Bondi's politicization of the DOJ while attempting a similar act via the Bar. We recognize that Trump's Justice Department is by design, political. And Bondi's actions have been extremely partisan — including when she placed the DOJ attorney on leave in the case of the Maryland man who had been wrongly deported a man to El Salvador. 'At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,' Bondi said in a statement. 'Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.' The Florida Bar exists to ensure the integrity of the legal system is protected – not act as a political referee. It's understandable that some feel justified challenging Bondi's standing as a lawyer. Bondi's conduct does warrant scrutiny, and she holds an enormous amount of power as the U.S. attorney general. But the uncertainty of the times shouldn't be a reason to use the law to punish ideological opponents, even if we think the other side does it, here to send the letter.
