More Justices? Utah's Supreme Court may expand under newly opened bill
SALT LAKE CITY () — A newly opened bill could pave the way for Utah's Supreme Court to expand.
The bill file is titled 'Judicial Officer Modifications,' and was opened Wednesday by House Majority Leader (R-Saratoga Springs), who tells ABC 4 that he's opened a bill file to 'explore the potential of adjusting the number of justices on the Utah Supreme Court.'
'Over the past decade, we have seen growing caseloads, delays, and evolving legal complexities in Utah's highest court,' Moss told ABC 4 News. 'The Legislature has the ability to adjust the court's size in response to these growing demands,' Moss said.
There is no text of the bill yet so it's unknown whether lawmakers are looking at expanding the number of justices to seven, nine, or some other number. There are currently 5 members of Utah's Supreme Court.
Lawmakers propose at least 5 changes to Utah's Constitution — What to know
Senate leaders acknowledged they'd heard about the proposal but were leery of commenting further.
'It's an interesting bill file, we'll see if it has legs,' said Senate President Stuart Adams (R-Kaysville).
ABC4 previously asked Governor Cox about expanding the court and other judicial reforms during a Jan. 21 taping of Inside Utah Politics.
'If (expanding the court) helps improve efficiencies, that's something that I think may be worth looking at,' the Governor said then. 'When it comes to electing judges, I would veto that. That would be the fastest veto you've ever seen from me.'
Utah's legislative and judicial branches have recently in the wake of some rulings on initiatives and the voiding of two amendments from being voted on.
aimed to limit injunctions by the trial courts and place limits on who has third-party standing to bring cases against the legislature are also in the works.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Afraid' for court: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courthouses
NEW YORK − The Trump administration on June 12 sued New York state for its law restricting federal immigration enforcement inside state courthouses. The lawsuit challenges a New York state law that blocks immigration officials from arresting people at or near New York courthouses. The complaint, filed in federal court in Albany, New York, alleges the law frustrates federal immigration enforcement at a venue - state courthouses - where authorities can safely make arrests. U.S. Justice Department lawyers said New York's law and policies restricting cooperation with federal immigration officers violated the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state law. The lawsuit filed in federal court in Albany comes after the administration has increased immigration enforcement at workplaces and while people appeared for immigration court hearings. People have protested against the federal actions in cities across the country. Attorney General Pam Bondi blamed so-called 'sanctuary city policies' for violence seen in California. Sanctuary policies generally refers to those limiting local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. The Justice Department has also sued four New Jersey cities for their laws. New York state had similar policies preventing agents from apprehending migrants, Bondi said in a statement. 'This latest lawsuit in a series of sanctuary city litigation underscores the Department of Justice's commitment to keeping Americans safe and aggressively enforcing the law,' she said. Justice Department lawyers challenged the 2020 state law preventing federal officials from arresting people for civil immigration violations at state courthouses without a signed judicial warrant. New York's 2020 law doesn't apply to federal courthouses or immigration court, according to the legislation's author, state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Manhattan Democrat who called the lawsuit 'baseless and frivolous." The Justice Department said in a news release that enforcement at courthouses reduces risk of people fleeing or dangerous situations, especially since there is enhanced screening inside court buildings. State officials said federal agents entering local courthouses make communities unsafe by preventing people from accessing the judicial system. The law ensures New Yorkers can pursue justice without fear, Geoff Burgan, a spokesperson for state Attorney General Letitia James, said in a statement. 'Due process means nothing if people are too afraid to appear in court,' he said. James would defend the law and 'all of New York's laws, just as she will continue to defend the rights and dignity of all who call New York home,' Burgan said. Hoylman-Sigal, who authored the law, said the lawsuit was part of the administration's 'ongoing assault on the rule of law in New York.' To avoid conflicting with federal law or federal immigration authority, the law doesn't apply to federal courts or immigration courts, he said in a statement. Meanwhile, it allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest people in local courthouses when they have 'actual, valid judicial warrants.' 'At a time when masked ICE officials are roaming the state and lawlessly detaining New Yorkers without any due process, the law preserves access to justice and participation in the judicial process,' he said. A contentious issue has been federal agents targeting people in 'sensitive" areas. Prior Department of Homeland Security guidelines banned enforcement in areas such as schools, places of worship and hospitals. When President Donald Trump took office in January, DHS overturned the longstanding policy to give agents discretion on such actions. The administration enacted another policy permitting enforcement at or near courthouses. Justice Department lawyers also challenged two New York executive orders restricting civil immigration arrests at state facilities, and a separate policy preventing state employees from sharing information to federal officers related to civil immigration enforcement. 'Through these enactments, New York obstructs federal law enforcement and facilitates the evasion of federal law by dangerous criminals, notwithstanding federal agents' statutory mandate to detain and remove illegal aliens,' the complaint said. The same day as the lawsuit, Gov. Kathy Hochul was one of three Democratic governors testifying before Congress about "sanctuary" policies and immigration enforcement. Hochul said her state has cooperated with ICE since she's taken office. "But we have to draw a line somewhere,' Hochul said. 'New York cannot deputize our state officers to enforce civil immigration violations, such as overstaying a visa.' The administration's attack on the 2020 law would turn courthouses 'into traps,' Donna Liberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. It would further force immigrant communities into the shadows. An initial conference date for the lawsuit was scheduled for Sept. 10, court records showed. Contributing: Bart Jansen, USA TODAY Eduardo Cuevas is based in New York City. Reach him by email at emcuevas1@ or on Signal at emcuevas.01. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courts
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge says Trump illegally deployed National Guard to help with L.A. protests, must return control
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday directing President Donald Trump to return control of the National Guard to California. The order, which takes effect at noon Friday, said the deployment of the Guard was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Trump's statutory authority. The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said Trump overstepped his bounds in ordering the deployment of roughly 4,000 National Guard members to Los Angeles after protests erupted over the immigration crackdown. It was not immediately clear how that would change the situation on the ground. California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued to block the Guard's deployment against his wishes. California later filed an emergency motion asking the judge to block the Guard from assisting with immigration raids. He argued that the troops were originally deployed to protect federal buildings and wanted the court to block the troops from helping protect immigration agents during the raids, saying that involving the Guard would only escalate tensions and promote civil unrest. In a broad ruling, the judge determined Trump had not properly called the Guard up in the first place. Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, speaking in an interview with The Associated Press and one other media outlet, said that as of Wednesday, about 500 of the Guard troops have been trained to accompany agents on immigration operations. Photos of Guard soldiers providing security for the agents have already been circulated by immigration officials. Sherman is commander of Task Force 51, which is overseeing the Guard troops and Marines sent to Los Angeles. Newsom has characterized the federal military intervention in the nation's second-largest city as the onset of a much broader effort by Trump to overturn political and cultural norms at the heart of the nation's democracy. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has echoed that, saying the troop deployment was unnecessary and meant to undermine local jurisdictions and intimidate the city's large immigrant population. Earlier in the day, Breyer said he intended to rule quickly. 'This country was founded in response to a monarch, and the Constitution is a document of limitations. I'm trying to figure out where the lines are drawn,' the judge said before a packed courtroom. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Maine Senate rejects effort to ban trans girls from sports
Alice Frost, who identifies as transgender, speaks to a reporter after a rally in Cumberland, Maine on Sunday, March 23, 2025, calling on Maine lawmakers, and local MSAD51 school officials, to support transgender student athletes. (Photo by Troy R. Bennett/ Maine Morning Star) Despite pressure from the Trump administration to repeal protections for transgender student athletes, lawmakers in the Maine Senate late Thursday rejected legislation that would restrict transgender students' access to school sports and bathrooms. The majority of the chamber also shot down an effort to roll back state law that establishes a process for someone at least 16 years old to access gender-affirming health care. The bills — LD 1134 and LD 380 — mark the first of several targeting transgender rights that will go before lawmakers in the Senate and Maine House of Representatives in the coming days. LD 1134 would specifically ban transgender girls from playing girls sports or using girls bathrooms or locker rooms. It is one of three similar proposals this session that require trans students to adhere to sports and facilities that align with the sex assigned at birth. The Senate voted 21-14 in support of a motion to reject the measure, with Sen. Rick Bennett of (R-Oxford) joining Democrats against the bill. In a speech on the Senate floor, Bennett commended the students who spoke up on 'every side of the issue.' Transgender teens and allies crowd State House to fight anti-trans bills 'These are Maine kids and they deserve to grow up in a state where they are safe, respected and seen,' he said. Referring to those who say the bill seeks to put the state in compliance with federal anti-discrimination protections, he said those questions are 'already being addressed in courts where they belong. What we are being asked today is something different: deciding if our laws will affirm the dignity of every child in Maine, or diminish it.' Many of the bill's critics focused on what they said were inherent biological differences between males and females and the superior athleticism of males. Bill sponsor Sen. Sue Bernard (R-Aroostook) told her colleagues she meant no disrespect to the trans community with the bill. 'I'm merely recognizing biological strengths and differences that exist,' she said. 'It's also what's inherently fair and unfair about requiring girls to compete against trans athletes. There's nothing new about leveling the playing field in sports.' Sen. Mike Tipping (D-Penobscot), however, pointed out that trans women and girls have been competing alongside cisgender girls in sports in Maine for decades without much fanfare. 'This is nothing new,' he said. 'What is new is the outsized and disproportionate focus on their lives, especially on what trans kids get to do at school.' He continued, 'Banning a group of kids from playing sports alongside their classmates simply because of who they are is not about ensuring fairness. It's about drawing a line of exclusion. And for trans youth, who already face significantly higher rates of bullying, depression and suicide, being told they don't belong will have serious consequences for their health and their well being.' The Senate also voted 21-14 against LD 380, which would no longer allow minors that are at least 16 years old to consent to gender-affirming care, which can include a wide range of services, including hormone therapy and counseling. Debate centers on fairness and safety during hearing on transgender sports bills Sen. David Haggan (R-Penobscot), who sponsored the legislation, said parents should know what children are doing, 'in all facets of life,' until they are 18 years old. Sen. Anne Carney (D-Cumberland) said the current law was passed after 'exhaustive study and debate in the 131st Legislature. There's no reason to change.' Hundreds of people attended the May public hearing on the slate of anti-trans bills, the vast majority of whom were there in support of trans students. Citing national attacks on trans rights, students, parents of trans youth, faith leaders, educators and other community members testified against the proposals. In 2021, the Maine Human Rights Act was amended to include gender identity as a protected class against discrimination. But that policy has been the subject of debate and scrutiny since President Donald Trump threatened to withhold federal funding unless Maine complies with his executive order banning transgender girls from playing girls' sports. The U.S. Department of Justice is currently suing the state over what it says are violations of Title IX, which protects against discrimination in schools. Other legislation expected to appear before the House and Senate include proposals to restrict the rights of students to use affirming pronouns and broader bills attempting to remove gender identity as part of the Maine Human Rights Act. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
