‘Power grab' from the courts? Utah bill would raise bar to pause alleged unconstitutional laws
Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Pleasant Grove, works in the Senate chamber at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on Thursday, Feb. 6, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
A wonky bill that could have big impacts on court cases challenging the constitutionality of laws passed by the Legislature is heading to the full Utah Senate for consideration after winning endorsement from a Senate committee on Wednesday.
The bill's critics — including those challenging Utah's near-total abortion ban in court — argue it's part of a 'blatant power grab by the Legislature against the courts and the constitutional separation of powers in Utah.'
Contending that Utah judges have too often blocked laws passed by the Legislature from taking effect while courts weigh their legal standing, Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Pleasant Grove, wants to raise the legal bar before laws can be put on hold.
With SB204, Brammer wants to give state attorneys the ability to seek a 'suspensive appeal' to stop a court-ordered injunction from blocking enforcement of a law while the rest of the court case plays out.
'What that does is it says, 'Hey, you know, the law should not be set aside quite so easily,'' Brammer said Wednesday during the bill's first public hearing in the Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'If they're going to enjoin a law that's been passed by the duly elected people, they are getting in the way of democracy on a lot of levels,' Brammer said. 'You know, there are times when that's appropriate, but they may have swung the pendulum too far. And so that's really the brunt of this. And this provides immediate relief to get that issue before the courts sooner rather than later.'
If a trial court grants an injunctive order in a case with an underlying claim that the state law is unconstitutional, SB204 would allow state attorneys to file a motion to ask the court to decide whether the plaintiff challenging the law can 'establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of the underlying claim that the state law is unconstitutional.'
The bill would then require the judge to issue a decision that 'resolves any doubts in favor of constitutionality' and 'states the facts, law, and reasoning that support the court's finding.' If a judge still issues an injunction, SB204 would then allow state attorneys to seek a 'suspensive appeal' to take the case straight to the state's highest court.
The Utah Supreme Court would then weigh whether the law is unconstitutional and whether the injunction 'should remain in effect during the pendency of the civil action.' While the Utah Supreme Court weighs those questions, however, the injunction would be 'suspended until the appeal is resolved or the parties stipulate otherwise.'
If passed by the full Utah Legislature, SB204 would take effect on May 7.
Brammer argued courts should have a higher bar before pushing pause. 'Because we can't just run out the clock at the beginning without some really good reasons while the law does not go into effect,' he said.
Brammer pointed to a ruling in December in which a judge granted a temporary restraining order against a recently-passed law to restrict flavored e-cigarettes. That bill, which he co-sponsored with Democratic Sen. Jen Plumb, was blocked 'without even receiving the opposing brief from the state,' he said.
'That's taking our law quite lightly,' Brammer said. 'We do have some concern with the levity with which the courts appear to be restraining laws at the outset of cases so that they're not in effect until it gets to the Supreme Court.'
Though he didn't point to them specifically, there are other more high-profile court cases that have fed tension between the Republican-controlled Utah Legislature and the Utah Supreme Court.
One lawsuit in play that Brammer's bill could potentially impact is an ongoing court case challenging Utah's near-total abortion ban that was triggered when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Last summer, the Utah Supreme Court upheld an injunction that blocked enforcement of Utah's trigger abortion ban after Planned Parenthood of Utah sued, alleging the ban was unconstitutional. That injunction remains in place today as litigation continues to play out in 3rd District Court.
In the meantime, abortions have remained legal in Utah up to 18 weeks of most pregnancies under a 2019 law.
That Utah Supreme Court ruling upset Republican lawmakers, and in part has fueled lawmakers' frustration with the judiciary that continues to loom over the 2025 Utah Legislature.
Citing 'frustrations' with the courts, Utah Republican lawmakers eye possible judicial reforms
Brammer's bill is one of the first to be considered so far this session that could potentially give the Legislature more of an edge in court proceedings. He has another, SB203, that would restrict who would be eligible for third-party standing to bring civil actions against the state.
That bill was held up in the Senate committee Wednesday after it failed to advance on a 3-3 vote. But the committee's chair Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, said he'd put it on the committee's next agenda to reconsider it.
To Kathryn Boyd, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, both of those bills raise a bigger issue than just the potential impact to the case holding up Utah's abortion ban.
'The real impact of these bills is on the rule of law and the judiciary because they represent a blatant power grab by the Legislature against the courts and the constitutional separation of powers in Utah,' Boyd said in a statement. 'Sen. Brammer is proposing an untested and fringe legal theory to wrest power away from the Courts because he is offended when Utah judges follow long-established rules and procedures to block unconstitutional legislation passed by lawmakers.'
Brammer, through a statement issued by a Senate spokesperson earlier this week, did not answer a question from Utah News Dispatch about whether his bill is at least in part aimed at trying to enact Utah's abortion ban while the court case plays out. His statement explained the bill from a broader level.
'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,' he said. 'SB204 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.'
David Connors, a former district court judge who spoke on behalf of the Utah State Bar Commission before the Senate committee, said the bar has voted to oppose the bill in its current form, though he said the commission welcomes further discussion to address concerns.
Currently, though, Connors said Brammer's bill 'raises some interesting and serious issues regarding the checks and balances within our constitutional form of government.'
Utah Supreme Court upholds pause on trigger law that would ban almost all abortions
Connors noted that under Utah's existing rules of civil procedure, before issuing an injunction on a law, a judge already needs to determine 'there is a substantial likelihood that the applicant would prevail on the merits of the underlying claim.' He noted that the Legislature changed that standard roughly a year ago to raise that bar.
'And that's important,' he said. 'Because what's being asked to be done in this case is, one assumes the judge has already made that particular determination. If the party opposing doesn't like the determination, it can then go back and make a motion and ask the same judge to make an additional ruling the same issue … and then asking the court not only to find that it's likely to be unconstitutional, but also to find that likelihood by a standard we call clear and convincing evidence, which is a heightened standard.'
That's an 'odd' standard to require at that point in the case, Connors said, because at that point the case would not have yet reached evidentiary proceedings. 'Clear and convincing evidence is a question that the court has to determine when it weighs evidence at the conclusion of a case,' Connors said, not at the beginning.
On top of that is the question of allowing a 'suspensive appeal' to bring the case directly to the Utah Supreme Court. Connors said then the bill appears to 'take away from the Supreme Court any option to allow the injunction to stay in place.'
Connors then questioned whether the law could apply to not just the Legislature or the state government, but 'any city' that could try to invoke the SB204's provisions. He warned against 'unintended consequences' of potentially empowering other legislative bodies, like cities, to enact clearly unconstitutional laws — such as a law to seize and destroy gun owners' guns.
Linda Smith, an attorney and retired law professor, also spoke against the bill, saying it would 'vastly change how courts deal with injunctions.'
She argued the courts must already weigh high standards before issuing an injunction on a law, including whether a person seeking the pause will suffer 'irreparable harm' without the injunction, and that the 'threatened injury to the applicant outweighs whatever damage the proposed order or injunction may cause the party restrained or enjoined,' and that the injunction 'would not be adverse to the public interest.'
'Those other points robustly cover whether this injunction is appropriate in the setting where there's a question about a law's constitutionality, and the judge thinks it's likely unconstitutional,' Smith said.
CONTACT US
She argued Brammer's bill goes too far.
'I think that's very poor public policy, to require that a statute that a judge has found likely unconstitutional to go into effect just because there's an appeal,' Smith said.
Brammer disagreed with Smith and Connors. He argued his bill would only apply to state law and not cities, though he agreed the Legislature should be wary of 'unintended consequences.'
'That's been one of the problems with the courts kind of being very loose on enjoining laws,' Brammer said, adding that he believes judges have been 'getting the analysis wrong' and that's led to them frequently issuing injunctions.
'We are very concerned with the levity by which the courts are treating the laws in the Legislature. And they're setting themselves up to be antagonistic,' Brammer said. 'It seems to be the standard is let's enjoin any law and we're going to go through the entire process, and then we'll figure it out at the end at the Supreme Court level. I don't think they should be doing so so lightly.'
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 to endorse the bill. It now goes to the full Senate for consideration.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the $1,000 ‘Trump accounts' for American babies compare to 529s and custodial Roth IRAs
President Donald Trump and American business leaders this week celebrated a provision in his tax bill that would create and fund investment accounts for babies born in the next few years. The accounts would be allowed to compound and grow tax-deferred, similar to the way some retirement accounts work. 'In addition to the substantial financial benefits of investing early in life, extensive research shows that children with savings accounts are more likely to graduate high school and college, buy a home, start a business and are less likely to be incarcerated,' Trump said. 'Trump accounts will contribute to the lifelong success of millions of newborn babies.' Here's what you should know about these 'baby 401(k)s' and how they compare to other savings plans for children. The so-called Trump accounts are part of Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that passed through the House of Representatives last month. Republicans are aiming to get the bill through the Senate and signed by Trump by July 4th. Here's how the accounts would work: The federal government would contribute $1,000 to an investment account for every American baby born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. An additional $5,000 in after-tax contributions could be made annually to the accounts by parents, employers or other private entities. The money would be invested in index funds that track the overall U.S. stock market. Accounts would be controlled by a child's legal guardians until age 18. Earnings would grow tax-deferred and qualified withdrawals would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. 'The compounded growth of an initial $1,000 investment at the time of birth, at an average annual return of 8 percent, would amount to nearly $4,000 by age 18, more than $10,000 by age 30, and over $148,000 by age 65,' according to Bankrate Chief Financial Analyst Greg McBride. 'The key to achieving this type of growth is leaving the money untouched. As Warren Buffett espouses, 'Never interrupt compounding.'' Several business leaders praised the accounts and said they'd make contributions to their employee's kids' accounts. 'We see … the establishment of these Trump Accounts as a simple yet powerful way to transform lives,' Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell said. 'Decades of research has shown that giving children a financial head start profoundly impacts their long-term success.' Get started: Match with an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals Trump Accounts have some similarities with 529 savings plans, but there are some notable differences. Funding: Trump accounts would be initially funded by the federal government, while 529 plans are typically funded by parents, grandparents or other relatives. Withdrawals: Withdrawals from 529 plans are tax-free as long as they're used for qualified educational expenses. Withdrawals from Trump accounts would have fewer restrictions on their uses, but are taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Contribution limits: Annual contributions for Trump accounts would be limited to $5,000, while 529 plans allow for much higher limits, from about $235,000 to more than $600,000, depending on the state that sponsors the plan (these are lifetime limits; there's no annual limit for 529s). Many people assume that the maximum 529 plan contribution is $19,000 per child in 2025 — or $38,000 if you file jointly — but that's the maximum amount you can contribute without exceeding the annual gift tax limit. (If you give someone more than that limit in any given year, then you're required to file a gift tax return, though you likely still won't owe taxes on the gift.) Here's what else you should know about using a 529 plan to save for your kids' education. Compare advisors: Bankrate's list of the best financial advisors Custodial Roth IRAs also allow kids to set aside money and have it be invested so it grows over time. Here's how they compare to the proposed Trump accounts. Earned income requirement: Trump accounts would be funded at birth and allow for additional contributions each year, while custodial Roth IRAs require a child to have earned income during the year in order to contribute. Contribution limits: Custodial Roth IRA contributions are limited to $7,000 in 2025, or the total amount of earned income a child has during the year, whichever is less. Trump accounts would allow for annual contributions of $5,000. Taxes on withdrawals: Withdrawals from Roth IRAs during retirement are tax-free, while withdrawals from the proposed Trump accounts would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. Here's more on custodial Roth IRAs. The proposed Trump Accounts would create new investment accounts for every American baby born in the next few years, funded with $1,000 from the federal government. The accounts would be invested in index funds that track the U.S. stock market and could receive additional contributions each year of $5,000 from private entities. The plan is subject to change as the bill makes its way through the legislative process. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Challenge to Tampa Bay Senate seat revisits how it was created in 2022
The federal courthouse in Tampa on June 11, 2025. (Photo by Mitch Perry/Florida Phoenix) Day Three of the federal lawsuit alleging that a Tampa Bay area state Senate district was racially gerrymandered focused in part on how that district was created in 2022. The suit, filed by the ACLU of Florida and the Civil Rights & Racial Justice Clinic at New York University on behalf of three residents of Tampa and St. Petersburg, alleges the Legislature packed Black voters into District 16 to reduce their influence in nearby District 18, in violation of their equal-protection rights. Democrat Darryl Rouson serves in SD 16, while Republican Nick DiCeglie is the incumbent in SD 18. The defendants are Senate President Ben Albritton and Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, and their attorneys began their defense on Wednesday, bringing Jay Ferrin back to the witness stand in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Tampa. Ferrin is now a senior adviser to the Florida Senate, but he served as staff director of the Florida Senate Committee on Reapportionment in the fall of 2021, when the districts lines were created. He discussed how he and his staff went about drawing up the Senate districts that year and the guidelines they followed. The reapportionment process beginning that fall was taking place under the guidance of Ray Rodrigues, who chaired the Senate Reapportionment Committee. Defense attorneys aired several Florida Channel video excerpts on Wednesday showing Rodrigues explaining how 'hard lessons were learned' following the Florida Supreme Court's decision in 2015 to throw out the GOP-controlled Legislature's maps after deeming them unlawful under the Fair Districts constitutional amendments adopted by voters in 2010. Rodrigues was insistent that he wanted the 2022 Legislature to conduct itself in such a fashion that the courts would not reject the maps lawmakers would produce. 'This map will withstand a court challenge,' Rodrigues declared on the floor of the Senate. That's what the trial taking place this week will ultimately determine. Ferrin testified that, after his staff created other Senate districts in the Tampa Bay area, there remained about 100,000 residents in Pinellas County who would have to be inserted into another Senate district. (With the population of Florida in 2021 at 21.5 million people, Ferrin said, his staff were tasked to draw approximately 538,438 voters into each of the 40 Senate districts). The resultant SD 16, which encompasses parts of St. Petersburg and Hillsborough County, is similar to the 'benchmark' map created in 2015 that was then known as Senate District 19. Ferrin denied that he was instructed to maintain that same configuration. He also said that under the rules promulgated by Rodrigues, he and his fellow staffers could speak about any new maps only with either the Senate's general counsel or other Senate members — and not the general public. He was not supposed to review public submissions. Florida senators were allowed to propose amendments during the reapportionment process, to add their own maps. Rodrigues and Democratic Sen. Audrey Gibson had filed such amendments, Ferrin said, but no senator had asked him to directly to create any Senate maps. ACLU attorney Nicholas Warren said at the beginning of the morning that he had sought to depose Rodrigues and fellow Republican and committee member Danny Burgess before the trial, but both had asserted legislative privilege, which shields them having to testify in certain lawsuits. In the afternoon, the defense called two expert witnesses who criticized the expert witness testimony and voting analysis that came from the plaintiffs on Tuesday. Steven Voss is a political science professor at the University of Kentucky. When asked to break down the political partisanship of the Tampa Bay area, he included four counties that make up the Tampa Bay metropolitan statistical area — Hillsborough, Pinellas, Polk and Hernando. Based on population, he said, five Senate districts could be folded into the area, and that three historically were reliably Republican while two would favor Democrats. Currently, that breakdown is four Republican districts and one Democratic — with Senate District 14, which Voss said historically favored Democrats, going to the GOP in 2022. Voss took aim at the alternative voting maps produced for the ACLU by Penn State University professor of statistics Cory McCartan. Those maps showed that a district could have been fairly drawn up exclusively in Hillsborough County while still protecting Tier-1 standards there and in Pinellas County. (That involves the Florida Constitution's Fair District Amendment, which says that districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice). Voss said that the result of McCartan's work was that he was 'cracking and packing' voters in his maps to ultimately help Democrats at the voting booth. Sean Trende, senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, also testified for the defense. He praised the composition of the Senate maps passed by the Legislature in 2022, saying it was 'pretty incompetent racial gerrymandering, if that's what's going on.' The trial is expected to conclude on Thursday. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Tammy Baldwin: Pete Hegseth could not cite the legal authority Trump has to deploy Marines to L.A.
Senate Democrats grilled Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the Trump administration's rationale for sending National Guard members and active-duty Marines into Los Angeles. Sen. Tammy Baldwin – one of those Democrats – joins The Weeknight.