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

Southern Baptists endorse overturning same-sex marriage
Southern Baptists endorse overturning same-sex marriage

Yahoo

time43 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Southern Baptists endorse overturning same-sex marriage

Southern Baptist delegates overwhelmingly called to try to reinstitute a ban on same-sex marriage 10 years after the Supreme Court legalized the unions. While gathered at the 2025 national convention in Dallas on Tuesday, the delegates of the country's leading Protestant denomination voiced their goal of changing national policy on same-sex marriage. Southern Baptists have long been opposed to same-sex marriage, but the call this week for the Supreme Court to reverse its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling has strategists questioning if it was influenced by the 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade, which was the constitutionally protected right to an abortion. The convention attracted thousands of pastors and church members from congregations across the country. The vote took place on the first day of the meeting, which gave a glimpse into the denomination's view on a number of political and cultural issues, The New York Times reported. The vote comes just after Gallup released survey results about a widening gap between Republicans and Democrats about their support for same-sex marriage. According to the polling, 68% of U.S. adults support same-sex marriage. Democrats' support has risen to 88% in 2025, while Republican support has dropped to 41%, the lowest since 2017. Southern Baptists acknowledged that their support for making same-sex marriage illegal puts them in the minority, but they say the nonbinding resolution puts their views on the map. While the support for overturning Obergefell may not be a strong sentiment nationwide, the Southern Baptist enthusiasm could lead to political efforts to change the law, as seen in recent years with the support and eventual reversal of Roe. Several other resolutions and ideas were passed by delegates, including defunding Planned Parenthood, banning pornography and condemning sports betting. Southern Baptist Convention Resolution Committee Chair Dr. Andrew Walker acknowledged they have an uphill battle to finding broader support for the resolution, but he would 'love to see Obergefell overturned' and a marriage definition in the U.S. 'restored to the union of one man and one woman.' 'There is very little desire, even on the conservative side, I think, to go to bat for marriage in this particular culture. And I want to stress to the press, while we are making a policy and legal statement, I'm clear eyed about the difficulties and the headwinds in this resolution,' Walker said during a press conference. Walter said the resolutions passed by the delegates were statements that can and will inform the way policymakers view Southern Baptist sentiment and desires. The Times noted that Southern Baptist values are often viewed as a bellwether for evangelical conservatism. 'I understand that it is largely ingrained in the American psyche at this point,' Walker said of same-sex marriage. 'But the role of this resolution was to say Southern Baptists aren't going anywhere.'

Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes
Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes

Yahoo

time43 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes

A Wisconsin watchdog group has filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk claiming that he unlawfully bribed voters with million-dollar checks and $100 giveaways in the state's latest Supreme Court election. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that investigates election transparency — along with two Wisconsin voters, filed the suit against Musk, his super PAC America PAC and another Musk-owned entity called the United States of America Inc. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed that Musk and his entities violated state laws that prohibit vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries. It also accuses Musk of conducting civil conspiracy and acting as a public nuisance. Musk and America PAC did not respond to a request for comment. 'In the context of an election for Wisconsin's highest court, election bribery—providing more than $1 to induce electors (that is, voters) to vote— undermines voters' faith in the validity of the electoral system and the independence of the judiciary,' the suit reads. The complaint alleges that Musk violated state laws in giving away $100 to voters who signed a petition 'in opposition to activist judges' and handing out million-dollar checks to those who signed the petition. The suit says that those who had won the checks had voted for candidate Brad Schimel. At a town hall in Green Bay, Musk gave away million-dollar checks to two people, both of whom the suit claims voted for Schimel. In a video America PAC posted on X, one of the winners said he had voted for Schimel and encouraged others to do the same. 'Everyone needs to do what I just did, sign the petition, refer your friends, and go out to vote for Brad Schimel,' the winner, Nicholas Jacobs, said in the video. The suit mentions that Musk had said the $1 million awards would be given 'in appreciation' for those 'taking the time to vote.' Despite Musk's America PAC spending over $12 million on Schimel's campaign, candidate Susan Crawford won the race. Before the race had been called, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a similar lawsuit against Musk over his involvement in the state Supreme Court election, but a county judge declined to immediately hold a hearing. A Pennsylvania judge similarly declined a request to block Musk's million-dollar giveaways in the state. During the presidential election, Musk's America PAC had also given out million-dollar checks to people registered to vote in swing states, which the Justice Department had warned could be illegal. Musk defended his giveaways during the presidential election despite the allegations of unlawfulness by saying that those who signed the petition weren't given the money as a prize and that chance 'was not involved here.' Those who signed the petition were instead America PAC spokespeople with the 'opportunity to earn' $1 million. 'Make no mistake: an eligible voter's opportunity to earn is not the same thing as a chance to win,' Musk said, according to Reuters. Jeff Mandell, the co-founder of Law Forward — the law firm that filed the suit on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — said in an interview with NBC News that this lawsuit has the advantage of additional time. 'The election is over. Some passions have cooled, and we are bringing this in a normal posture, asking the court to go through its normal procedure,' Mandell said. 'We are confident that we'll get a complete and fair adjudication.' The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's lawsuit also seeks to bar Musk from 'replicating any such unlawful conduct in relation to future Wisconsin elections.' 'Almost everyone who was watching closely or saw what was happening here in Wisconsin in that very tight period was pretty horrified, and would say things like, 'Well, this can't possibly be legal,' or, 'He can't possibly get away with this,'' Mandell said. 'That's really the purpose of this lawsuit, is to make sure that a court does say — in accord with both the law and I think people across the political spectrum's intuition — that this is not legal conduct, this is not consistent with how our democracy works, and to make sure it doesn't happen again.' This article was originally published on

Majority on Brazil court in favor of tougher social media rules
Majority on Brazil court in favor of tougher social media rules

Yahoo

time43 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Majority on Brazil court in favor of tougher social media rules

Brazil's Supreme Court reached a majority Wednesday in favor of toughening social media regulation, in a groundbreaking case for Latin America on the spread of fake news and hate speech. The South American country's highest court is seeking to determine to what extent companies such as X, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook are responsible for removing illegal content, and how they can be sanctioned if they do not. The judges' final ruling will create a precedent that will affect tens of millions of social media users in Brazil. At issue is a clause in the country's so-called Civil Framework for the Internet, a law in effect since 2014, that says platforms are only responsible for harm caused by a post if they ignore a judge's order to remove it. By Wednesday, six of the court's 11 judges had ruled in favor of higher accountability, meaning sites should monitor content and remove problematic posts on their own initiative, without court intervention. One judge has voted against tougher regulation, and three have yet to express an opinion. Alexandre de Moraes, one of 11 judges of the court, has repeatedly clashed with X owner Elon Musk and various right-wing personalities over social media posts. The review is taking place in parallel with the Supreme Court trial of far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is alleged to have collaborated on a coup plot to remain in power after his 2022 election defeat. Prosecutors say Bolsonaro's followers used social media to lie about the reliability of the electoral system and plot the downfall of successor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Last year, Moraes blocked X for 40 days for failing to comply with a series of court orders against online disinformation. He had previously ordered X to suspend the accounts of several Bolsonaro supporters. Musk and other critics say Moraes is stifling free speech, and US President Donald Trump's administration is weighing sanctions against the judge, whom Bolsonaro accuses of judicial "persecution." Lula, who emerged the victor in a tightly-fought election against Bolsonaro in 2022, is advocating for "accelerating regulation" of online platforms. ffb/ll/dga/mlr/des

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