7 key ways the Utah legislature could change the judiciary

Yahoo

20-02-2025

SALT LAKE CITY () — A slew of proposals making changes to the judicial branch have come forward at the Utah legislature, ranging from the makeup of the state Supreme Court to how Utahns get information on retaining judges and when laws can be paused because of constitutional questions.
In the wake of this past summer's ruling on initiatives — and the and D, both rulings that went against the legislature — top legislative leaders like Utah's House Speaker vowed judicial reforms in the wake of those decisions.
What has passed — and what's still to come during the 2025 Utah legislative session
Senate leaders, however, have denied the proposals are any form of retribution. Rather, they argue the changes are about the best policy — and an effort to speed up judicial processes. They point to cases like Utah's abortion trigger ban and others that are still unresolved after years in the courts.
'It's not about chipping away at the Judiciary,' Senate Majority Leader and lawyer Kirk Cullimore (R – Draper) said when asked about the plethora of proposals. 'It's just that we've got three branches of government, two of which are directly elected by the populace and the third one that is kind of like in a little black box.'
While none of these bills have passed the legislature yet, several have begun their legislative journey — although not without some opposition. The Utah State Bar worries several of the proposals undermine separation of powers and could 'inject politics' into the judciary.
Here's a breakdown of the key bills to watch:
A member of House leadership is exploring to a yet-to-be-determined number.
House Majority Leader (R -Saratoga Springs) said the move is an effort to speed up the judicial process.
'Over the past decade, we have seen growing caseloads, delays, and evolving legal complexities in Utah's highest court,' Moss said in a statement. 'The Legislature has the ability to adjust the court's size in response to these growing demands.'
, S.B 296 being run by a member of Senate leadership, would allow vacancies in the high court and court of appeals to be filled by appointment of the Governor and confirmation by the Senate — a process used now to confirm each of Utah's judges.
Currently, by majority vote to serve for four years. The Supreme Court justices' terms are 10 years.
'Upon any vacancy in the office of chief justice, including expiration of a term of the office of chief justice, or upon a chief justice's death, removal, or resignation, the governor shall appoint a chief justice from among the members of the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate,' the bill reads.
The bill is sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Chris Wilson (R – Logan).
'What we're trying to do is align the selection process (at the federal level) where the President (of the United States) selects the Supreme Court Justice and then goes through confirmation hearings with the Senate,' Wilson said. 'We think this will be a good way for our constituents, the citizens to be able to weigh in on that process — with the confirmation hearing they'll be able to weigh in.'
When asked directly if the proposal was a commentary on the current Supreme Court, he replied, 'No, I think it's good policy.'
Senate leaders also argue that if justices have to curry favor with each other to become chief justice the appointment would 'take the politics out of the body.'
A new bill yet to be placed on a committee, being run by another member of House leadership, would set up a process for lawmakers to make retention recommendations for judges on the ballot.
sets up the 'Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Performance,' outlines its makeup, and directs the Lt. Governor's office to put 'any retention recommendation from the (committee) for a judge or justice who is listed on the ballot.'
Senate leaders have said the goal is to give the public more information about the judges they're retaining, in addition to the current system where a judge gets a rating from JPEC, Utah's .
The Utah State Bar opposes the idea arguing that 'judges will be made to answer to the legislature based on any disagreement with a judge's ruling' and that the process will 'inject politics into the current merit-based and nonpartisan judicial evaluation and retention process.'
A bill would also raise the threshold for a judge to be retained in Utah.
Currently, under Utah law, judges only need to earn 'more yes votes than no votes,' or a simple majority, to win a retention election.
The proposal from Rep. Jason Kyle (R-Huntsville) in , as written would require 67% approval. The bill has not moved out of rules yet in the Utah House.
S.B. 204 would allow defendants to appeal an injunction when a trial court rules that a law must be paused or not enacted because it's potentially unconstitutional.
'A defendant has a right to an appeal of an injunctive order granted by a trial court of this state in a civil action if the underlying claim for the injunctive order is that the state law unconstitutional on its face,' the substituted bill reads.
Sen. Brady Brammer (R – Pleasant Grove) has told ABC4.com that this proposal aims to address lower court 'overuse' of injunctions on laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, while also arguing that it has 'long been the policy to presume laws are constitutional with doubts resolved in favor of constitutionality.'
After initially opposing the bill, the Utah State Bar says it is now neutral on it.
SJR 009 would put a 28-day stipulation on parties challenging potentially unconstitutional laws and seeking an injunction. They would need to do so within 28 days from the time the legislature adjourns.
Senator Kirk Cullimore (R – Draper) admitted he wasn't familiar with the proposal but said the idea was to speed up challenges to bills before the law takes effect.
'If there's going to be a challenge, let's do it before we actually effectuate the law,' Cullimore said.
The Utah State Bar also opposes this proposal.
'We remain concerned with (this proposal) that dictates the timing to obtain an injunction in a trial court. This resolution is inconsistent with SB 204 by giving only 28 days to enjoin an unconstitutional injunction. We are working with Sen. Brammer to address these issues,' a statement said.
Finally, S.B. 203 looks to and add requirements for when an association can bring a case on behalf of its members, something critics say would prevent groups from proving they've been harmed unless the harm had already occurred.
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 Utah State Bar also opposes this bill arguing the bill attempts to change long-standing common law principles of standing.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.