Utah governor defends GOP push to oust state Supreme Court justices

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox on Thursday dismissed criticisms of a Republican campaign to oust two state Supreme Court Justices for a ruling that used a novel interpretation of the Utah Constitution to challenge GOP lawmakers.

The political party is well within its right, Cox said, to mobilize members to vote against justices Diana Hagen and Jill Pohlman, who are facing one of the rare electoral checks on judicial appointees this year through a retention election.

“This is how the system should work,” Cox told the Deseret News. “If people don’t like decisions that are coming out of our Supreme Court ... the appropriate way to deal with that is to vote against those judges in a retention election.”

Retention elections take place in the first general election at least three years after appointment and again once every decade after that. Hagen and Pohlman are the only justices up for retention after being appointed by Cox in 2022.

On Saturday, GOP chair Rob Axson told thousands of party delegates at their state nominating convention to vote “no” for both justices, who Axson alleged have “zero business being in the robe” because they “ignore the Constitution.”

The decision that started it all

The court’s decision that led to the GOP’s push came in July 2024, when the Utah Supreme Court departed from precedent in a unanimous opinion barring the Legislature from amending most ballot initiatives that reform the government.

Republican leaders, including Cox, state Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz, responded with outrage — which only increased when the ruling was used to overturn Utah’s congressional map in 2025.

GOP officials argued that the Supreme Court’s decision violated lawmakers’ constitutional role in making laws, and would lead to the state being unalterably changed by ballot initiatives powered by special interest groups.

On Thursday, Cox said the court “did a bad job” and reiterated that while reasonable people can disagree about the Utah Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision, he does not think that they followed the state Constitution.

This is the first time that Axson or the Utah State Bar is aware of a political party organizing around a retention election. But that does not mean it is illegitimate, according to Cox, because “you can’t take politics out of elections.”

“Independence is important,” Cox said. “But that doesn’t mean that the judiciary isn’t responsible, that we don’t have any checks on the judiciary. We do have checks on the judiciary, and these retention elections are one of them.”

Investigation into misconduct allegations

Tension between Utah’s executive, legislative and judicial branches of government reached a new high earlier this month when Cox, Adams and Schultz announced they would launch an investigation into alleged misconduct by Hagen.

A complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commission contained allegations that Hagen engaged in an improper relationship with an attorney who argued before the court in the case challenging the Legislature’s congressional map.

Hagen denied any wrongdoing, saying she recused herself from the redistricting case to avoid a potential conflict of interest. The court issued a statement saying the complaint was dismissed and should never have been released.

A timeline for the investigation into Hagen’s conduct is still uncertain, Cox said on Thursday. But, depending on the results, Cox said he would be willing to consider voting “no” in her retention election or supporting her impeachment.

“When you sign up to be a judge in this state, you get held to a higher standard. Period. Everyone knows this. This is part of the deal. If you want your personal life to always be personal, then don’t be a judge.” Cox said.

Cox recognized the “immense” tension between the judiciary and other branches of government. While the “allegations are serious,” Cox said it is important that the investigation is independent so it does not look like a “witch hunt.”

Axson explains retention vote campaign

The news of the allegations about Hagen did not figure into his decision to call her out at convention, Axson told the Deseret news. His resolve to remove her from office predated it and had to do with the July 2024 ruling.

Axson feels the same way about all four justices who were on the bench at the time the ruling was handed down, he said. Hagen and Pohlman just happened to be the two justices up for a vote this year.

The party will roll out a messaging campaign, just as it did earlier this year in an ultimately unsuccessful campaign to put Utah’s redistricting law on the ballot, to urge voters to vote “no” on the justices, Axson said.

“We have an out-of-touch judiciary that ignored their constitutional responsibility, and in so doing they have removed any legitimate claims to being able to continue in that service to the people of Utah,” Axson said.

While all justices were appointed by Republican governors — including Hagen and Pohlman who were appointed by Cox — Axson said the Judicial Nominating Commission typically limits the pool to judges who do not represent most Utahns.

By responding to the July 2024 decision, the GOP is not unfairly politicizing the court, it is giving a voice to Utahns who feel like their republican form of government is being undermined by “judicial activists,” Axson said.

Utah courts push back on GOP

On Tuesday, the Utah State Bar encouraged voters to base their retention vote on recommendations from the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission instead of a single ruling from a justice that angered a political party.

In an interview with the Deseret News, Bar President-elect Tyler Young said the commission, which is made up of appointees from the governor, Legislature and Supreme Court, reviews all courtroom conduct before making a recommendation.

Judges face a difficult job of trying to interpret the law while knowing that in almost every case their rulings will anger one side or another, including individuals who have a much louder microphone than they do, Young said.

“We at the Bar don’t think a judge should be looking over their shoulder and wondering, ‘Gosh, am I gonna make the Legislature upset with this ruling, am I gonna make the governor upset with my ruling?’” Young said.

Amid frustration over the court’s slow deliberation on Utah’s abortion ban and its reinterpretation of the Constitution to limit their power, lawmakers passed numerous reforms during the 2026 legislative session targeting the judiciary.

Lawmakers expanded the state Supreme Court from five to seven, increased funding for lower courts, established a new three-judge district court to consider challenges to the Legislature and required greater transparency for the court system.