logo
‘Power grab' from the courts? Utah bill would raise bar to pause alleged unconstitutional laws

‘Power grab' from the courts? Utah bill would raise bar to pause alleged unconstitutional laws

Yahoo07-02-2025

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

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers

Associated Press

time30 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers

TPresident Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food aid program, by the numbers: Year: 2008 The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law took effect eliminating a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. Number: 42 million A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the county. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. Dollars: $295 billion Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion of federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come by expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. Ages: 7 and 55-64 To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents would need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. Percentages: 5% - 25% The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. Margin: 1 House Resolution 1, containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts, passed the House last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food aid and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it.

‘We're living in the dumbest timeline' — Gov. Cox comments on SLC Sego pride flags
‘We're living in the dumbest timeline' — Gov. Cox comments on SLC Sego pride flags

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

‘We're living in the dumbest timeline' — Gov. Cox comments on SLC Sego pride flags

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — Governor Cox commented on Salt Lake City's Sego pride flags in his monthly press conference Tuesday, calling them and the Utah law that banned pride and other unofficial flags 'dumb.' Governor Cox was asked if he supported the official flags that Salt Lake City adopted in response to Utah , the law that from being displayed on government property and at public schools. Previously, Cox called H.B. 77 the . Cox allowed the law to go into effect without his signature, and he did not veto the bill because it passed with a veto-proof majority. 'I don't support [the bill]. They're dumb flags, and it was a dumb bill,' Cox said. He clarified that he was referring to the Sego pride flags in Salt Lake City. Gov. Cox's pick to head new state records office gets OK from Senate panel despite criticism In response to H.B. 77, Salt Lake City adopted pride and Juneteenth designs as official flags for the city in . These flags allow the city to circumvent the law banning pride flags and other unofficial flags because they are now official city flags. The Sego Celebration, Belonging, and Visibility flags are meant to honor Juneteenth and Black and African American residents, LGBTQIA residents, and transgender residents respectively. 'It's ridiculous. I feel bad for the Japanese Americans. I feel bad for the Polynesian Americans… I mean, who are we leaving out here?' Cox said. 'I'm sure they [Salt Lake City Council] feel great that they got around this dumb law, and they did it with dumb flags. The whole thing's dumb.' Cox offered his thoughts on what both the state and cities should do instead of squabbling over pride flags. 'We should raise the American flag, and let's unify around that. It's a great flag, represents everyone, and the legislature doesn't need to be in everybody's business all the time,' he said. 'We're living in the dumbest timeline right now, that's all I can say,' Cox concluded. RSL hoping to make a run in second half of season Utah lawmakers oppose AI regulation in Trump's 'Big, beautiful bill' 'Somebody has to stop it:' Gov. Cox defends Trump's decision to deploy troops to LA 'We're living in the dumbest timeline' — Gov. Cox comments on SLC Sego pride flags Calif. governor asks court to block Trump administration from using troops in immigration raids Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Utah lawmakers oppose AI regulation in Trump's ‘Big, beautiful bill'
Utah lawmakers oppose AI regulation in Trump's ‘Big, beautiful bill'

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Utah lawmakers oppose AI regulation in Trump's ‘Big, beautiful bill'

SALT LAKE CITY () — Utah Lawmakers have signed a letter opposing specific measures related to artificial intelligence in President Donald Trump's In a letter addressed to Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Senator John Curtis (R-Utah), state lawmakers say they are 'concerned with the proposed ten-year moratorium on state-level artificial intelligence regulation.' According to , initially the bill was and block dozens of states from enforcing preexisting AI regulations and oversight structures in any way. But on June 5, the Senate Commerce Committee altered the text on the bill. The new version would only require states not to regulate AI if they want access to federal broadband funding. The bill allocates $500 million over the next 10 years to modernize government systems with the help of AI and automation technologies. In a letter signed by nearly 50 lawmakers including House Speaker Mike Schultz (R-Hooper) and Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore (R-Draper), they claim the provision would hinder Utah's nationally recognized efforts 'to strike the right balance between innovation and consumer protection.' They add that since Utah to establish an Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy, followed by the launch of an AI learning Lab, Lawmakers say these initiatives 'allow Utah to encourage responsible AI development, empower industry leaders and shield consumers from real-world harms, all without stifling innovation.' According to , a centerpiece of the legislation is making the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent — which nonpartisan scorers and think tanks estimate would cost trillions of dollars over the next decade. Utah taxpayers may take a hit if 2017 cuts expire The bill also includes a proposal that would raise the cap for the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, which would allow taxpayers — especially those in higher-tax blue states — to deduct more of their regional taxes from their federal tax bill. The bill also has major reforms to Medicaid, estimated to lead to millions of people losing coverage by 2034. Trump is pushing Congress, where Republicans have majority control, to send the final product to his desk to become law by the Fourth of July. RSL hoping to make a run in second half of season Utah lawmakers oppose AI regulation in Trump's 'Big, beautiful bill' 'Somebody has to stop it:' Gov. Cox defends Trump's decision to deploy troops to LA 'We're living in the dumbest timeline' — Gov. Cox comments on SLC Sego pride flags Calif. governor asks court to block Trump administration from using troops in immigration raids Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store