06-02-2025
Pair of proposed bills could limit challenges to Utah laws in courts
SALT LAKE CITY () — A pair of bills being could have a significant impact on legal challenges to laws passed by the Utah legislature.
, titled 'Suspensive Appeal Amendments,' specifies that trial court injunctions — which put laws on hold until they're ruled on — would go away as soon as an appeal to that lower court's ruling was filed with the Utah Supreme Court. If S.B. 204 is passed, that would mean that any law being challenged over its constitutionality could stay in effect until the Supreme Court makes a ruling.
, otherwise known as 'Judicial Standing Amendments,' could have more far-reaching effects, as it would narrow the criteria for who is eligible to have to bring civil actions against the legislature.
Controversial bill requiring mailed ballots to be returned in person with ID advances
Under the proposal, only parties who are in a 'legal relationship' — such as a marriage, parent-child relationship, guardianship, or conservatorship — would be allowed to bring civil actions. An association would still be able to file on behalf of its members, as long as the members meet certain requirements.
S.B. 203 also gives new powers to Utah's Attorney General's Office to file civil actions of 'significant public importance' without qualifications for standing.
Senate leaders — as well as the sponsor of both of these proposals, Sen. Brady Brammer (R – Pleasant Grove) — defended the bills, arguing S.B. 204 is about speeding up the court process and creating a clear separation of powers.
'If there's a law in place… if the law is going to be enjoined or overturned or anything like that, we just want to ensure that it gets to the top and actually the Supreme Court who is tasked with administering the judicial branch that they're the ones making that policy decision where that separation of powers is appropriate,' said Sen. Majority leader Kirk Cullimore (R – Draper).
Asst. Majority Whip, Sen. Mike McKell (R – Spanish Fork), who is also an attorney, argued that the change on injunctions was needed for efficiency.
'It's a slow process and I think that's frustrating,' McKell said. 'I think it's frustrating to lawmakers, it's frustrating to my clients, it's frustrating to [Cullimore's clients] but we want efficiency, we want decisions quicker.'
The pair were also asked about whether the bills were aimed at Utah's abortion trigger ban. That law is currently on hold via an injunction while the Utah Supreme Court weighs its constitutionality. The abortion trigger ban was initially blocked by a lower court, leaving abortions legal in Utah up until 18 weeks of pregnancy.
Laws redrawing political boundaries, as well as laws regarding transgender girls playing in girls' sports were also halted by lower courts — and some remain unsettled.
Mckell said he didn't know if this bill was in response to the trigger ban.
In a statement, Sen. Brammer argued the lower courts have 'overused' injunctions.
'In this state and in our courts, it has long been the policy to presume laws are constitutional, with doubts resolved in favor of constitutionality. S.B. 204 seeks to ensure that legal tools are used in a way that respects the roles of all three branches of government while also addressing concerns about the overuse of injunctions by courts to block laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. I believe this will help protect the integrity of the process of upholding the rule of law in Utah,' he said.
On S.B. 204 and the issue of third-party standing, Brammer argued plaintiffs must show harm.
'As Chief Justice Durrant recently noted, 'Since our state's founding, we have required that plaintiffs show … a personal stake in the outcome of [each] legal dispute,'' Brammer said. 'S.B. 203 seeks to maintain access to the justice system for individuals with grievances while protecting the integrity of the courts and helping prevent them from becoming a forum de jour for out-of-state interests that cannot meet the traditional standing requirements.'
However, local defense attorney Greg Skordas told that these two bills would have a significant impact on the legal community.
'Senate Bill 203 is an attempt by the legislature to make it harder for groups to challenge the constitutionality of laws they pass. It narrows the definition of individuals or groups who are eligible, (having 'standing') to file a lawsuit contesting the constitutionality of legislation,' he said.
'Both bills are likely unconstitutional and will likely be challenged soon after they are enacted,' Skordas said.
He was also critical of the legislature's decision to tweak the judiciary.
'These are the kind of bills that cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars to defend (and ultimately lose) in court,' he said. 'It's really a knee-jerk reaction to our courts and some recent decisions pausing the implementation of questionable legislation until the constitutionality of that legislation can be determined.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
