Utah lawmakers voted this year to give Gov. Spencer Cox the ability to appoint the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court. It’s a power Cox did not want.
“Just because I can, doesn’t mean I should,” Cox wrote in a letter to legislative leadership explaining his March 25 veto. “And while I appreciate your faith and trust in extending me this new authority, I must respectfully decline.”
Under SB296, the governor would appoint the chief justice, with the Senate approving that choice. That would mirror the selection process for the U.S. Supreme Court. Currently, the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court is chosen by the sitting justices on the bench.
Additionally, the bill would have required the appointment and approval process to occur every four years. That, according to Cox, was what tipped him toward a veto. Although he admitted it was “very tempting to sign this bill and assure that the chief justice would need to stay in my good graces to retain his or her position.”
“This means that, unlike the selection of the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court would be required to go through a political appointment, a Senate confirmation committee, and full Senate confirmation processes every four years,” he wrote. “For these reasons, I have decided to veto SB296.”
In a statement shared with KUER in response to the veto, Senate President Stuart Adams and Speaker of the House Mike Schultz reaffirmed their stance that “The Utah Constitution specifically gives the Legislature the responsibility to establish the process for selecting the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court in statute.” They said the law’s objective was to align with the federal model for selecting a chief justice.
“Removing internal court politics from judicial decision-making ensures rulings are based solely on the law rather than justices’ leadership considerations,” the statement read.
The Legislature has been at odds with the judiciary over several high-profile rulings on abortion, redistricting and the role of citizen ballot initiatives. In each case, the decisions went against the Legislature. That led some Republicans to call for court reform in the aftermath.
During the 2025 session, several bills were introduced aimed at the judicial branch. Some, like a proposal to create a legislative judicial review committee that would publish recommendations for judicial retention elections, did not advance after unified resistance from Utah’s legal community.
Adams and Schultz signaled that Cox’s veto could lead to a more heavy-handed approach in the future.
“Through meaningful dialogue with the Judiciary — particularly with Chief Justice Durrant — we did not proceed with many bills during the session, and both the Judicial Council and the Utah Bar Association took a neutral position on several bills that moved forward, including SB296,” they wrote. “This veto undermines that good-faith compromise, and we will work with our chambers to determine the best path forward.”
For Cox’s part, he has stood by his belief in a healthy tension between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of state government.
“The judiciary is one of those checks and I'm very defensive of the judiciary,” he said during a March 7 interview with the State Street podcast. “So I think it's healthy that we're seeing some of that happening, kind of testing those boundaries, seeing where they are, making sure that we're getting that balance right.”
The Legislature can call itself into special session and override the governor’s veto with a two-thirds majority vote. The last time that happened was in 2022 when lawmakers overrode a Cox veto on a bill that barred transgender girls from participating in school sports.
SB296 did not pass either the House or Senate with a veto-proof majority.
In addition to the veto, Cox signed 200 other bills, including SB178, which limits the use of cellphones in schools, and HB100, which provides free school meals to students from low-income families.
