Tensions between Utah’s courts and the GOP supermajority have continued to simmer after high-profile decisions on the state’s near-total abortion ban and redistricting. Utah’s top judge is asking lawmakers not to let their disappointment lead to the punishment of an entire branch of government.
“Utah has a superb judiciary,” Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Durrant said during his annual state of the judiciary address on the first day of the legislative session. “It is deeply respected throughout the nation.”
In his remarks to House and Senate lawmakers, Durrant defended the independence of the judiciary. Friction between the branches of government, he noted, is not something that should be eliminated, but rather it is a sign of healthy institutions.
“These disagreements are to be celebrated and valid,” he said. “The problem comes when we cross over from substantive disagreement to personal attack, to attacks on motive, integrity and good faith. This erodes public confidence in our institutions.”
In the wake of an August ruling that threw out a lawmaker-drawn congressional map and a November ruling selecting a map drawn by plaintiffs in that case, Utah courts reported an alarming increase in threats to judges and court employees. Some Republican lawmakers decried the decisions as “judicial activism.” One lawmaker even called for Judge Dianna Gibson, who oversaw much of the redistricting legal fight, to be impeached.
In a clear response to that rhetoric, Durrant made it clear where he stands.
“The bottom line for us is that we must decide cases, and the cases we decide often have strong arguments on both sides, but the reality is there will always be one side that is left disappointed, and I'm afraid judicial activism has come to mean a decision I disagree with,” he told lawmakers.
“We apply a presumption of good faith to the work you do. I hope you will accord us that same presumption.”
Legislative efforts to reform the courts began in 2025, when lawmakers proposed changes to judicial retention. Some proposals, like a bill to insert lawmakers into the process, were abandoned. Others, such as giving the power to name the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court to the governor, made it through. Gov. Spencer Cox later vetoed that bill, and it was later revised to get his support during an October special session, eventually passing and being signed into law.
Fast forwarding to the 2026 legislative session, there are already several bills to reform the courts. Those proposals range from adding two justices to the state supreme court to expanding lower courts. There are also resolutions seeking to amend the Utah Constitution and put those changes to voters. One alters how judges can be nominated. The other would give the Legislature the ability to call special retention elections for a judge who engages in “certain conduct.”
There’s no firm definition of conduct, but the amended language states that if “the Legislature determines that a judge is unfit or incompetent, persistently fails to make timely decisions in a case, or has engaged in conduct that violates the judge's oath of office, is improper, or creates an appearance of impropriety” then lawmakers can call for a retention election as soon as possible.
Durrant told lawmakers that the effort to expand the Utah Supreme Court was “your prerogative.” He asked that lawmakers weigh the facts of the judiciary’s budgetary request, and cautioned against the move if it meant ignoring the other needs of the judiciary.
“If you elect to fund two new justices, please do not do it at the expense of the judicial positions we have prioritized,” he said. “The need for additional judges is much greater in our lower courts than in the Supreme Court.”
At the end of Durrant’s remarks, several Republican lawmakers did not stand to recognize him.
House Majority Leader Casey Snider told reporters on the first day that the legislature’s efforts to change how the courts operate are not in response to one particular ruling. As an example of one reason for a closer look, he pointed to a Utah judge who cited the "privilege" of a defendant as a reason for a lighter sentence.
“There have been several poor decisions, several clear, unfair situations where justice has clearly not been served, where the court has protected its own against the demands of justice,” he said. “And so we're in a position where we have to react moving forward, unfortunately.”
Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore said his colleagues will weigh each piece of legislation carefully, but stopped short of endorsing anything specific.
“I think we're just trying to navigate what's the right way to make people better informed about the branch of government that is a reflection of them,” he said. “We already have processes where if a judge really goes astray, we have the ability to impeach.”
Democrats, however, will be a harder sell. Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla said resources are needed lower in the court system before she would support expanding the number of judges.
“There's also the staffing, and they've been saying it for a while,” she said, noting that funding goes beyond the bench. “So I think we need to be, you know, putting our money where our mouth is if we're going to move forward in reviewing the infrastructure and making sure that the servicing is adequate.”
Sen. Stephanie Pitcher, one of only two Democrats on the Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee, called the timing of proposed changes while the redistricting case is being appealed a “clear attempt to sway the ideology of the Supreme Court at a really critical time in that litigation process.”
“With regards to expanding the Supreme Court, I've said this openly, I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept,” she said. “But what I'm really opposed to, I think, is the process and the way that this has gone about.”
The bill to expand the Utah Supreme Court will have its first committee hearing on the third day of the session, Jan. 22.
