Legal professionals protest against bills that seek to reshape Utah's judicial branch
SALT LAKE CITY () — Several bills proposed in the 2025 legislative session are looking to reshape Utah's judicial branch — but hundreds of attorneys, judges, and legal professionals gathered on Wednesday to say that would be attacking the separation of powers.
More than 900 attorneys across the Beehive State signed a letter urging lawmakers to reject a handful of different efforts to reform the judiciary.
LEARN MORE: 7 key ways the Utah legislature could change the judiciary
'S.B. 203 and SJR 9 will make it harder for Utahns to challenge unconstitutional laws, stripping away one of the few tools that everyday people in Utah have to hold their government accountable,' one protester said.
'We have a good judiciary,' Rep. Grant Amjad Miller (D – Salt Lake City) said. 'We shouldn't change it. We should keep it.'
The bills they were opposing range from the makeup of the state's Supreme Court to setting up a process for lawmakers to make retention recommendations for judges on the ballot.
'The legislature has an important role to serve — that role is in making laws, not in telling each of us how to vote in judicial retention elections,' University of Utah law professor Christopher Peterson said.
State Sen. Daniel Thatcher (R) said he has never seen the judicial branch weigh in on legislation. Senate leaders say it is within their constitutional right to change the judiciary, arguing that changes are about the best policy — and an effort to speed up the judicial process.
Legal professionals who signed the letter and protested at the State Capitol voiced their disapproval of the following bills and resolutions:
, 'Boards and Commissions Revisions,' and , 'Judicial retention changes.'
, 'Judicial Election Amendments.'
, 'Judicial Standing Amendments.'
, 'Legislative Audit Amendments,' and , 'Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules of Procedure and Evidence.'
, 'Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Civil Procedure on Injunctions'
, 'Judicial Amendments.'
, 'Right to Appeal Amendments.'
ABC4.com has previously discussed some , including changes that could come from HB 512, HB 451, SB 203, SJR 009, SB 296, and SB 204. A more is also available on ABC4.com.
Protesters on Wednesday called to 'keep politics out of the courtroom.'
HB 412 would amend several sections of the Utah Code and change requirements for limiting members of a political party to be on 'certain boards, commissions, committees, and councils.' The language of the bill suggests removing constraints to control how many members of a political party may be on a commission.
HB 512 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.'
HB 451 would raise the threshold for a judge to be retained. According to the language in the bill, it proposes requiring judges to receive at least 67% of the vote to retain their office. However, opponents argue that the bill would create 'extra barriers' to prevent some judges from keeping their positions.
SB 203 looks to (people different from the plaintiff) and add requirements for when an association can bring a case on behalf of its members. Critics argue this would make it harder for 'everyday Utahns' to challenge laws.
SB 154 seeks to make changes related to the disclosure of confidential information. The bill proposes, in part, that the disclosure of confidential information would be authorized if requested by the legislative auditor. Refusal to disclose a 'privileged item' would require a written statement explaining why that information was withheld.
The passage of SB 154 is attached to the passage of SJR 004 — if SJR 004 does not pass, SB 154 would not be enacted. SJR 004 seeks to make amends to several rules of civil procedure, including (but not limited to) attorney-client privilege and waiving that privilege in relation to a legislative audit.
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.
'By limiting this timeframe, it makes it harder for citizens to fight back against unfair laws,' opponents argue.
SB 296 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. Opponents argue the bill 'allows politics to dictate court leadership.'
SB 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. Sen. Brady Brammer (R – Pleasant Grove) has previously told ABC4.com this proposal aims to address the 'overuse' of injunctions in lower courts, particularly on laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor.
Derick Fox contributed to this report.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
32 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Argentina's Supreme Court upholds prison sentence for ex-President Cristina Fernández
BUENOS AIRES (AP) — Argentina's Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the 6-year prison sentence on corruption charges for former President Cristina Fernández. The ruling would also disqualify the leader of South American country's opposition movement, known as Peronism, from holding public office. It left Fernández, one of Argentina's most important political figures of the past two decades, at the brink of an arrest by authorities. Fernández governed for eight years after succeeding her husband in 2007. Under her watch, Argentina became notorious for its unbridled state spending and massive budget deficits. She was found guilty by a federal court in 2022 of having committed a millionaire fraud during her presidency through irregular allocation of state funds to a businessman close to her. Fernández had asked the court for a review of the prison sentence in March, which three judges of the high court rejected. Tuesday's court decision means that Fernández will not be able to compete in September for a seat in the legislature in the country's capital, as she had announced.


Hamilton Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Argentina's Supreme Court upholds prison sentence for ex-President Cristina Fernández
BUENOS AIRES (AP) — Argentina's Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the 6-year prison sentence on corruption charges for former President Cristina Fernández. The ruling would also disqualify the leader of South American country's opposition movement, known as Peronism, from holding public office. It left Fernández, one of Argentina's most important political figures of the past two decades, at the brink of an arrest by authorities. Fernández governed for eight years after succeeding her husband in 2007. Under her watch, Argentina became notorious for its unbridled state spending and massive budget deficits. She was found guilty by a federal court in 2022 of having committed a millionaire fraud during her presidency through irregular allocation of state funds to a businessman close to her. Fernández had asked the court for a review of the prison sentence in March, which three judges of the high court rejected. Tuesday's court decision means that Fernández will not be able to compete in September for a seat in the legislature in the country's capital, as she had announced. ____ Follow AP's coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .


New York Post
38 minutes ago
- New York Post
Dems smearing Trump as ‘authoritarian' were oddly quiet over Joe Biden's strongarm diktats
The left's attempts to brand President Donald Trump's deportations and his response to the Los Angeles riots as 'authoritarian' would be downright comical — if they weren't so dangerous. Trump's actions are 'purely authoritarian,' insists Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). Boston Mayor Michelle Wu decries the 'secret police tactics,' while ex-Veep Kamala Harris claims that deploying the National Guard is all about 'stoking fear.' The Intercept's Natasha Lennard warns of a 'full-on authoritarian takeover of the U.S. government.' Please. No such charges flew when President Joe Biden illegally ordered the private sector to make all its workers get vaxxed during COVID. Or when he openly defied the Supreme Court to extend the federal eviction moratorium. Nor when Team Biden was caught using strong-arm tactics to censor speech it didn't like. Progressives saw no fascism in prosecutors using the courts to try to bankrupt and jail Trump as he ran for reelection. Or when Democrats sought to remove his name removed from ballots. Radio silence prevailed, too, when the Biden Justice Department sent FBI agents to raid Mar-a-Lago, Trump's personal residence. And when the Bureau targeted traditional Catholics and parents who opposed DEI and trans policies in their schools. Now Trump is doing exactly what he said he'd do — i.e., deporting illegal immigrants and enforcing the law — and the left screams 'authoritarian!' Please. Progs hate our immigration laws but lack the votes to change them, and so detest Trump's moves to enforce them — and sympathize with the rioters trying to interfere with that enforcement. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters So when the president sticks to his course, they smear him as dictatorial. They've chosen to stand up for the illegal-immigrant rapists, murderers and gangbangers ICE agents are trying to deport, claiming the arrests create 'fear' in their neighborhoods. Sorry, but it's the gangsters, killers and sex offenders who create fear, and most Americans are glad to see Trump get them out their nabes. An RMG Research poll late last month found voters back Trump's immigration policies by a 56%-to-42% margin. An Economist/YouGov study through Thursday had Trump up 51-47. Confusing their left-wing base for the American center, Democrats — from Wu to LA Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom — are attacking Trump for taking an approach voters support. As so their words embolden rioters and fuel violence, infuriating average Americans . . . and handing Trump and the GOP a political gift. They're only further deepening the nation's divides while digging themselves into deeper holes.