It’s rare to hear from sitting Utah Supreme Court justices outside of hearings or written rulings. But this week, Justice Paige Petersen defended the court’s work.
“It’s a bit of a rocky time,” Petersen told attorneys at a March 17 panel hosted by the Utah State Bar. “I don't think in the past, we've seen things like elected officials saying a judge should be impeached. I don't know if the Legislature before has condemned individual judges and the supreme court.”
The event with Petersen and State Court Administrator Ron Gordon followed the end of the 2026 legislative session, in which the courts were a big reform target. After several high-profile rulings against the Legislature, such as redistricting and abortion, lawmakers made their ire known. In late 2025, the Legislature passed a resolution condemning both the state supreme court and the district court over redistricting decisions.
While the current relationship between the branches has repeatedly been described as tense, Petersen pushed back.
“I'm not out to poke the Legislature in the eye or seek retribution against them. I'm really not,” Petersen said. “None of my colleagues are.”
If the law is in the Legislature’s favor, Petersen said the Legislature will win.
But Petersen is worried about threats to judicial independence in Utah. She said the job of courts is to decide “cases based solely on the law, without fear or favor toward any party.” That has implications for all Utahns.
“If you are a person who comes to court to have your rights vindicated, you want to know that you are getting a fair shake. You want to know that you are being treated by the judge as on equal footing with whoever is on the other side of your case, even if it's the Legislature, who controls our budget,” Petersen said. “If the other branches begin to wield more and more control over the judiciary, can you feel confident of that?”
Petersen worries about public statements that might undermine confidence in the courts. Some lawmakers have repeatedly accused Utah judges of being “judicial activists.”
Last fall, the Legislature removed the state supreme court’s ability to choose its own chief justice, handing that power to the governor.
In Utah, she said, judges are selected based on merit. When there’s a judicial vacancy, a nominating commission comes up with a list of potential candidates for the governor to choose from. It used to be the case, Petersen said, that there couldn’t be a majority of people affiliated with the same political party on that committee. But in 2023, lawmakers ditched that guardrail. She said that was a big loss.
And it isn’t just the concrete changes that worry her. Petersen said talks about getting rid of the nominating commission, or that judges should be elected, concerned her, too.
Gordon, the administrator of Utah’s court system, said it is fine for lawmakers to have their own opinions, but people should pay attention when it appears that a policy or debate is intended to impact independence.
“So, where anybody ought to be concerned if it sounds like a judge might be encouraged or tempted to ask themselves anything other than, ‘What does the law require of me in this particular case?’” Gordon said.
Petersen also addressed the Utah Supreme Court’s 2024 redistricting ruling that affirmed Utahns’ constitutional right to alter and reform the government. Legislative leaders called it the “worst outcome we’ve ever seen from the Utah Supreme Court” and accused the court of turning citizen initiatives into “super laws” that the Legislature couldn’t change.
While Petersen said she’s open to criticism, she wished the public debate had focused more on what was actually in the opinion, which she walked through. Petersen said Utahns’ right to alter and reform their government comes from the Declaration of Rights in the Utah Constitution.
“We did not create initiatives on the Utah Supreme Court. We are not the ones who came up with this. Initiatives have been in our state constitution since 1900,” Petersen said.
She disagreed with the idea that the ruling creates “super laws.” And Petersen also pushed back on the idea that the Utah Supreme Court has the final say.
“We interpret the law to the best of our ability based on what is there. We're not setting new policy. And if we interpret a statute in a way the Legislature doesn't like, they can amend the statute. If the people don't like that opinion, they can absolutely amend it, and then next time around, we will interpret what is there at that point.”
While the panel focused on concerns, Petersen said there were bright spots. This past legislative session, she said lawmakers often listened to feedback from the judicial branch. And after listening to lawmakers, Petersen said the judiciary has been holding community town halls to demystify the courts.
