logo
Legal professionals protest against bills that seek to reshape Utah's judicial branch

Legal professionals protest against bills that seek to reshape Utah's judicial branch

Yahoo27-02-2025

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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Warns Supreme Court 'Fans the Flames'
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Warns Supreme Court 'Fans the Flames'

Newsweek

time33 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Warns Supreme Court 'Fans the Flames'

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a warning about the nation's highest court in her latest dissent over the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)'s access to Social Security systems. Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court's public information office email for comment. Why It Matters Jackson, the newest justice on the bench, warned that conservative justices are rushing to assist President Donald Trump's administration in the ruling handed down last week. Her warning comes as public trust in the Supreme Court remains low—the Pew Research Center found in August 2024 that a majority of American—51 percent—view the court unfavorably, while only 47 percent view the court favorably. Until 2022, Americans viewed the court favorably for decades. What to Know The court allowed DOGE, the task force aimed at cutting federal spending, to gain access to Social Security Administration (SSA) records last Friday. The relief came after U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander blocked the task force from gaining access to the systems over concerns about privacy implications. The court's three liberal justices dissented, with Jackson raising concerns about the court's ruling. When deciding questions like whether to grant or block an order issued by a lower court, the court assesses several factors including whether the applicant would face irreparable harm by allowing the stay to continue. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks during a confirmation hearing on March 22, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks during a confirmation hearing on March 22, 2022. MANDEL NGAN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote that the government did not substantiate its stay request "by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm" if the court allowed the block to stay in place awaiting a final verdict. Jackson said the only "urgency" underlying the application is the "mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." "That sentiment has traditionally been insufficient to justify the kind of extraordinary intervention the Government seeks," Jackson wrote. "But, once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." Jackson is "clearly expressing her frustration with the use of the shadow docket to make public policy, something the Court's conservatives have been increasingly willing to do," Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek. "Public trust in the Court has fallen significantly in recent years, and Justice Jackson is likely linking the decline in public support for the Court to the growth in the use of the shadow docket," Collins said. Jackson issued a similar warning in the case Noem v. Doe in May. The case dealt with whether the administration could end a program giving residency to several countries facing domestic turmoil. She wrote the court "botched" its assessment and required "next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm." What People Are Saying Collins told Newsweek: "I think Justice Jackson's interpretation that the Court is rushing to side with the Trump Administration is a reasonable read of things. However, this probably has more to do with ideological alignment with the goals of the Trump Administration than with a particular affinity for President Trump. For instance, the Court's conservatives also sided with the Trump Administration in a case that would have required DOGE to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests." SSA Commissioner Bisignano to Newsweek via X last Friday: "The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts wrote on X on Friday: "MAJOR UPDATE: The Supreme Court just handed DOGE the keys to all the sensitive personal information Social Security has on file — your income, benefits, health records, and more. Why do Donald Trump and his cronies need access to millions of Americans' private data? It's absurd." What Happens Next Several pieces of Trump's agenda are facing legal battles, and the Supreme Court will continue playing a major role in determining whether his policies are constitutional or not moving forward. This has major implications for economic, immigration and social policy moving forward.

Mi'kmaq band drops legal case on N.S. lobster fishery
Mi'kmaq band drops legal case on N.S. lobster fishery

Hamilton Spectator

timean hour ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Mi'kmaq band drops legal case on N.S. lobster fishery

HALIFAX - A Mi'kmaq band has dropped a legal case alleging Ottawa was violating its treaty rights in the lobster fishery, after hopes were raised of a historic deal. Last December, the lawyer for Sipekne'katik First Nation told Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice John Keith that discussions with Ottawa to settle the matter were 'moving to a conclusion.' Keith gave the parties until June 16 to finish the mediation, but said at that point the case would carry on before the courts. However, a letter to the courts sent June 6 by Sipekne'katik's lawyer Nathan Sutherland dropped the case without any further explanation. Neither side has provided an update on the status of negotiations for a new agreement. Chief Michelle Glasgow, the leader of the Indigenous community about 70 kilometres north of Halifax, didn't reply to a request for comment. Band members had argued their 'moderate livelihood' lobster harvest outside of the regular season is permitted by a 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision, while non-Indigenous commercial fishers have contended it threatens stocks and fails to recognize how the courts have maintained Ottawa's right to regulate. The original lawsuit was launched by the band in 2021, seeking a declaration that current federal regulations infringe on its treaty right to fish. The Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance, a group that represents commercial fishers, said in a news release Monday that the discontinuing of the case is a 'major victory' for its members. 'It is an acknowledgement by Chief (Michelle) Glasgow and Sipekne'katik First Nation that the rights to the illegal out-of-season lobster fishing ... are not a treaty protected right, it is poaching, plain and simple', said Colin Sproul, president of the group. Meanwhile, the group said they will be pursuing separate legal action, filed in August 2024, asking the provincial Supreme Court to determine the rules and limits to be applied to Sipekne'katik First Nation's fishery under the Marshall decision. The Supreme Court of Canada's 1999 Marshall decision said the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy bands in Eastern Canada could hunt, fish and gather to earn a 'moderate livelihood,' though the court followed up with a clarification saying the treaty right was subject to federal regulation to ensure conservation. In September 2020, the Sipekne'katik First Nation issued five lobster licences to its members, saying they could trap and sell their catch outside the federally regulated season. In the months that followed there were confrontations on the water, rowdy protests and riots at two lobster pounds, one of which was razed by arson. According to a letter the band's lawyers sent to the court last December, seven federal officials — including the regional director of the Fisheries Department — attended weekly mediation talks in the legal case, with 10 representatives of the First Nation participating. 'The progress made to date and moving forward from our 25 years of impasse is immeasurable,' wrote Ronald Pink, the lawyer at the time, in the 2024 letter to the judge. The talks were also described by lawyers last December as being extensive, with former senator Dan Christmas and retired federal mediator Barney Dobbin guiding discussions. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 9, 2025. 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 .

Arkansas Supreme Court releases proposed rule for artificial intelligence
Arkansas Supreme Court releases proposed rule for artificial intelligence

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Arkansas Supreme Court releases proposed rule for artificial intelligence

The Arkansas Supreme Court building in Little Rock. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate) The use of artificial intelligence in legal documents could violate Arkansas law or court rules, according to a proposed administrative order issued by the state Supreme Court last week. Specifically, the proposed order addresses the use of confidential court data with generative artificial intelligence. AI models retain data inputted by users of AI products, such as ChatGPT, in order to continue training the large language models that exploded into public use only a few years ago, the order notes. 'Anyone who either intentionally or inadvertantly [sic] discloses confidential or sealed information related to a client or case [to a generative AI model] may be violating established rules,' the proposed order reads, specifically citing Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order Number 19, the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct and the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct. Additionally, the proposed order prohibits anyone with internal access to the state's court system, CourtConnect, from 'intentionally exposing our state courts' internal data to a GAI.' The proposed order provides an exemption to this prohibition if approval is granted by the Supreme Court's Automation Committee to engage in 'a research and analysis project related to the use of generative AI tools and general AI for the benefit of our courts.' The proposed order does not appear to address questions of broader use of AI by attorneys within the state court system. Judges in courtrooms across the country in recent months have expressed frustration with attorneys who have filed briefs and other documents bearing citations to nonexistent or irrelevant cases as a result of so-called 'AI hallucinations,' leading to sanctions in some cases. As reported by the Alabama Reflector, for example, lawyers who were being paid millions by the Alabama Department of Corrections to defend it against lawsuits filed by prisoners in the state system were called out by an inmate's attorneys for making up legal citations 'out of whole cloth' in a lawsuit where their client alleged being stabbed repeatedly while in restraints. The federal judge presiding over the case said that the incident showed that sanctions levied by other courts had proven 'insufficient' to deter lawyers from filing documents with improper or made up citations created by AI. 'That causes me to consider a fuller range of sanctions,' Judge Anna M. Manasco said. The Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Automation created a subcommittee to 'study the use of AI in the courts.' The introduction to the proposed order notes that as the committee continues its work, it will make recommendations. The comment period for the proposed administrative order ends on Aug. 1. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

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