The Utah Supreme Court heard three back-to-back cases on Monday, asking the state’s highest court to block a transfer of these cases to the Utah Legislature’s newly created three-judge panel. This panel, made up of three district court judges, was specifically formed to hear challenges to state laws.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs in these lawsuits — Planned Parenthood’s challenge to the state’s near-total abortion ban, the League of Women Voters of Utah’s anti-gerrymandering case, and young Utahns suing the state over harms caused by fossil fuel permits — argued the Republican-controlled Utah Legislature exceeded its constitutional authority when it created the panel earlier this year.
Proponents of the new panel have stated it aims to prevent “forum shopping,” which involves filing lawsuits in specific courts to secure favorable outcomes. They also argue it increases the number of judges who would consider high-stakes cases that challenge the constitutionality of state laws.
However, critics and plaintiffs argue the three-judge panel is unconstitutional. They contend the Utah Constitution does not grant the Legislature the authority to establish a district court structure composed of more than one judge, and that its creation violates the separation of powers between the courts and the Legislature. The plaintiffs further assert that the new court structure has delayed their ongoing district court proceedings, allowing state officials to potentially move cases away from judges who have not issued favorable outcomes.
Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s attorney, Camila Vega, opened her argument by noting the Legislature’s creation of the three-judge court came as her lawsuit over Utah’s near-total abortion ban was nearing its conclusion. She described this as changing the rules at the "eleventh hour." Vega questioned whether the Legislature can create a new type of district court without explicit constitutional authority, or make it available only at a party’s election for specific cases, including those against state defendants, without evidence of existing problems. Currently, an injunction continues to block Utah’s near-total abortion ban, upheld by the Utah Supreme Court in 2024, meaning abortion remains legal in Utah up to 18 weeks gestation.
The hearings marked the first high-profile cases for the newly expanded seven-member Utah Supreme Court and offered a look at how the court’s four recently appointed justices operate. Justices Jay Jorgensen and Stephen Dent, who had not held judicial positions before their appointments, actively questioned the attorneys.
Justice Jorgensen challenged Vega’s assertion about the absence of problems, interjecting, "Who are we to tell the Legislature what problems exist in society?" He added that courts generally defer to the Legislature on societal problems, as lawmakers interact with the community, unlike judges who are confined to the record. Vega responded that the record reflects disagreement with judicial decisions, rather than distrust, and that the panel's creation serves an "improper legislative purpose."
Justice Dent also pressed Vega on her argument that the Legislature lacks "express" constitutional power, reminding her that the state constitution typically limits power rather than granting it. Vega countered that Article VIII of the Utah Constitution, which outlines the judicial department, establishes a "very careful balance" and provides specific provisions for the Legislature to shape the judiciary through lawmaking, setting parameters rather than granting "plenary authority."
Justice Paige Petersen also raised concerns, pointing out that the law creating the panel is “unusual” because it immediately transfers cases from the original district court judge without allowing that court to rule on the propriety of the transfer. Petersen questioned whether this creates a separation of powers issue, noting there is no mechanism for a plaintiff to challenge or avoid the transfer. She also expressed concern about delays, stating, "I am concerned about the delay caused," noting that the abortion case's arguments were scheduled for April before the transfer notice disrupted it.
Erin Middleton, assistant solicitor general with the Utah Attorney General’s Office, defended the law, arguing lawmakers acted within their constitutional authority to make this a "procedural" rule change and create the new district court structure. Middleton stated the law does not interfere with the constitutionally guaranteed district court structure and that the Legislature can determine the number of judges and judicial districts, and decide that three judges should sit in certain cases.
Justice John Nielsen recused himself from the hearings for the abortion and redistricting cases due to previous work as a private attorney for Pro-Life Utah in 2022 and the Utah Republican Party in a prior appeal related to the anti-gerrymandering lawsuit. Second District Judge Joseph Bean was appointed to fill in for Nielsen in those two hearings, though Nielsen was on the bench for the fossil fuel development case.
The hearings lasted for hours on Monday, extending well into the afternoon. No decisions were made by the court, which took the matter under advisement and is scheduled to recess until November. The justices did not indicate when they might issue a decision in any of the cases.
