A panel of three federal judges denied an attempt to block Utah’s court-ordered congressional map from being used in the 2026 midterms. The unanimous ruling follows one from the Utah Supreme Court, which also declined to step into the case and change which map could be used in the election.
Both decisions — combined with the lawyers for the lieutenant governor saying her office and county clerks needed to know by Feb. 23 which map will be used — make it seem increasingly likely that Utahns will vote in November under the map selected by Third District Court Judge Dianna Gibson over one preferred by Utah GOP lawmakers.
The state’s previous congressional map had four safe Republican districts, while the redrawn map created a district centered on Salt Lake County that’s favorable to Democrats.
Republican lawmakers have repeatedly expressed fury about the decision and said they would try to overturn it before the midterms. The federal challenge came from two of Utah’s Republican congressmembers, Burgess Owens and Celeste Maloy, and other elected officials. Time seems to be running out. The avenue remaining for the federal case could be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The panel of three federal judges — Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich, District Judge Robert Shelby and District Judge Holly Teeter — heard arguments last week. The crux of the Utah lawmakers’ case was that Gibson had violated the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution in her rulings.
In the judges’ 39-page ruling, they said the Republican elected officials “have not shown they are likely to succeed on their alleged constitutional violation.” The judges said the plaintiffs hadn’t shown what they needed to get the “extraordinary relief” of blocking the newly redrawn map. So, the judges rejected the request.
They also rejected the request because of its proximity to the midterms. They focused on legal doctrine from the U.S. Supreme Court that says courts shouldn’t change election rules too close to an election because it could confuse voters, potentially reducing turnout. It’s called the Purcell principle.
In Utah, the filing period for congressional candidates opens in two weeks. It’s also just about three weeks until party caucuses. And political party conventions are in two months.
“Under Purcell, it is simply too close to Utah's formal election process for this court to insert itself,” the judges wrote.
However, one of the judges on the panel, Tymkovich, disagreed with his colleagues’ reasoning on the timing.
“Utah has not entered an active primary season. The Lieutenant Governor has assured us that she has time to implement a new map for caucuses and a primary,” Tymkovich wrote.
“Having said that, I also do not believe we have the power to resurrect the 2021 Map, the remedy requested by the Plaintiffs,” Tymkovich said. He agreed with his colleagues that the Republican officials seemed unlikely to succeed with accusations of Gibson’s constitutional violations in her decision.
Still, Tymkovich expressed reservations about how long it took Gibson to work through the case that “created timing and remedy issues that otherwise might not exist.”
A joint statement from Owens and Maloy, and the other plaintiffs in the case, said they were disappointed by the decision but also have “respect for the Court’s careful review.”
“This case concerns the Constitution's allocation of authority over federal elections, a question of lasting importance beyond any single election cycle,” the statement continued.
They didn’t say if they had plans for any additional legal steps.
Katharine Biele, president of The League of Women Voters of Utah — one of the plaintiffs in the original redistricting lawsuit that led to the redrawn map — said in a statement that they’re happy that the court protected the new map and that they “remain focused on protecting voters’ ability to make their voices heard.”
“We only wish that the futile attempts to undermine this fair map would cease so we could focus on what is important to Utahns.”
Speaking later to reporters about the federal ruling, however, Senate President Stuart Adams said, “We're not going to quit. This is a big deal.”
Adams indicated that he wants the Republican elected officials who filed the federal case to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
When he was asked about what comes next, Speaker of the House Mike Schultz said, “It's certainly not the end of the road. It is a huge setback for this election cycle.”
Schultz said they’re still reviewing what their options are moving forward.
For his part, Gov. Spencer Cox said he wasn’t surprised by the federal court’s decision.
“I think that most people thought that was a little bit of a long shot, certainly one that was worth trying,” he said. “But there was nothing in that order that surprised anyone.”
KUER political reporter Sean Higgins contributed to this report
