Utah lawmakers continue to quickly move legislation overhauling the state’s court system through the state Legislature — even as attorneys and judges say it’s too much too fast.
Critics say the effort represents lawmakers infringing on the independence of state courts — driven, they say, by dissatisfaction with how courts have ruled in several high-profile and controversial cases. Supporters of the lawmakers’ actions argue the changes enhance transparency and efficiency, enabling the courts to fulfill their duties more effectively.
A recent Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll conducted by Morning Consult found that, despite heavy criticism by lobby groups and concerned citizens, a majority of Utahns support one of the biggest changes made to the judiciary by lawmakers this year.
When asked if they supported Gov. Spencer Cox’s signing of the bill adding two justices to the Utah Supreme Court, which came in a bill expanding other state courts as well, most poll respondents said they strongly or somewhat support the expansion.
Among the 769 registered voters who took the poll, 17% said they strongly supported adding two justices, 41% said they somewhat supported the expansion, while 12% somewhat opposed and 9% strongly opposed the move. Another 22% of voters said they didn’t know.
“A majority of Utahns support expanding the Utah Supreme Court, but the poll shows a clear partisan gap in how people are approaching the issue,” said Jason Perry, director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah. “Republican voters are more likely to support the change, while Democrats and independents show more hesitation and a higher share say they are still undecided. That tells us many voters are still working through the details, and public opinion could shift as the discussion continues.”
Second judicial overhaul bill gets Gov’s signature
On Friday, Cox signed into law the second bill to bring structural change to the state’s judiciary, HB392, which creates a new constitutional court.
During the bill’s last committee presentation earlier this month, its chief sponsor, Rep. Matt MacPherson, R-West Valley City, told his fellow lawmakers his bill had “changed fairly significantly” since it was first introduced.
The District Court Amendments law establishes a three-judge court that will focus solely on lawsuits challenging state laws as unconstitutional. It will take effect on May 6.
If a lawsuit is filed in district court against the state attorney general, governor, or Legislature, or if they are a party in a case, they can submit a notice requesting the case be heard by the constitutional court panel instead of a single judge. That notice, under the bill, cannot be challenged and is not subject to review.
However, any decision made by the court is still subject to appeal to the Utah Supreme Court.
Judges will be assigned to the constitutional court through the existing random-judge assignment, and each judge must be from a different district. Funding for three clerks and one coordinator for the judges’ scheduling was also included in the bill.
MacPherson said that adding additional staff for the new court, rather than bringing over assigned judges’ personal staff, is to help with the “heavy workloads” lower courts are experiencing right now.
“The desire was not to necessarily burden them with additional work by impaneling them,” he said, but to “provide extra resources, because the intention is to try to prioritize these as they have statewide significance and they’re important for the entire state.”
The Utah State Bar disagrees, saying the measure would divert judges from already strained dockets and place them on an additional panel handling even more cases.
As the lobby group for the state’s attorneys, the Bar cited several judiciary-focused bills as being about “control” that “would inevitably influence judicial decision-making,” Bar President Kim Cordova and Bar President-elect Tyler Young told the Deseret News.
During a meeting with the Deseret News’ editorial board last week, the leaders of the Utah State Bar argued that tension between branches is natural, healthy even, but actions made by the Legislature this session compromise the separation of powers.
“The court should be able to manage itself, and we do have a constitutional court. It’s called the Utah Supreme Court,” Utah State Bar Commissioner Christian Clinger said.
The Bar also expressed frustration with what they said was a lack of conversation, following Cox’s signing the bill into law.
“The core of the law remains fundamentally flawed,” the Utah State Bar said in a public statement. “Public confidence in the judicial system depends on the belief that courts remain free from political interference. This law erodes that trust by allowing the legislative and executive branches to dictate the adjudication of constitutional claims. … Legislation that subordinates the judiciary to the other branches of government is fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law.”
What other bills are still being discussed?
So far, the court expansion bill and the court amendments bill are the only 2026 judicial-modification bills to become law, but several are still being considered by the Legislature.
Here are a few other bills that would directly affect the judiciary if signed into law:
HJR5 - Judicial Nominations & HJR13 - Judicial Retention
HJR5 seeks to change the process for nominating judges to the bench by requesting an amendment to the state Constitution so that the governor has the power to appoint judges without being bound by the nominating commission lists and without a deadline.
HJR13 focuses on judicial retention elections. It establishes a special process that would allow “voters to vote on whether a judge shall remain in office when a judge engages in certain conduct,” per the bill text, giving the Legislature power to trigger a special retention election outside the normal cycle.
The Legislature argues that both constitutional amendments would further accountability. The Bar argues the changes could spur potential “political retaliation.”
HB262 - Judicial Election Amendments
Also focused on judicial retention elections, HB262 changes the percentage required for a judge to return to the bench. The bill has yet to be heard in committee, but if signed into law, it would create a 67% retention threshold for judges to return to the bench, making it the highest threshold in the nation.
HB366 - Judicial Cases Distribution Amendments
This bill would direct presiding judges in each judicial district to assign designated judges to handle cases filed, appealed, or transferred by municipalities, while limiting those assignments to no more than one judge for every 5000 municipal cases a city generates in a year. It also requires municipal cases to be heard at the courthouse closest to a city’s principal administrative office, unless a judge finds good cause to hold proceedings elsewhere.
HB540 - Judicial Transparency, Information Access, and Transition Amendments
A bill lawmakers say would increase judicial transparency and accountability has been criticized by the Utah State Bar and former state Supreme Court justices as infringing on judicial independence. The bill would require courts to publish hearings online, require judges to disclose financial ties and would ban law firms from hiring a judge for two years after the judge leaves the bench if the firm represents an individual suing state government. The Bar said the bill “raises serious concerns about judicial independence and the separation of powers.”