Two proposed proposals might restrict court challenges to Utah laws

Salt Lake City, Utah – Legal challenges to legislation approved by the Utah legislature may be significantly impacted by two measures that are currently being discussed in a Senate committee.

According to Senate Bill 204, “Suspensive Appeal Amendments,” trial court injunctions, which halt laws until they are decided, would terminate as soon as the Utah Supreme Court received an appeal of the lower court’s decision. If S.B. 204 is approved, any statute that is being contested on constitutional grounds may remain in force until the Supreme Court renders a decision.

Since Senate Bill 203, also referred to as the “Judicial Standing Amendments,” will restrict who is qualified to have third-party standing to file civil lawsuits against the legislature, it may have more significant repercussions.

Only those involved in a “legal relationship”—such as a marriage, parent-child bond, guardianship, or conservatorship—would be permitted to file civil lawsuits under the idea. As long as the members fulfill specific standards, an association would still be permitted to file on their behalf.

Additionally, S.B. 203 grants the Attorney General’s Office of Utah additional authority to bring civil cases of “significant public importance” without the need for standing.

Senator Brady Brammer (R- Pleasant Grove), the sponsor of both of these ideas, and Senate leaders defended the legislation, claiming that S.B. 204 is about establishing a clear division of powers and expediting the court process.

Sen. Kirk Cullimore (R-Draper), the majority leader, stated, “If there is a law in place that is going to be enjoined or overturned or anything like that, we just want to make sure that it gets to the top and specifically the Supreme Court that is tasked with administering the judicial branch that they are the ones making that policy decision where that separation of powers is appropriate.”

Sen. Mike McKell (R-Spanish Fork), the assistant majority whip and an attorney, contended that the injunctions amendment was necessary for efficiency.

“I find it frustrating that it’s a slow process,” McKell remarked. I believe that politicians, my clients, and Cullimore’s clients find it frustrating, but we desire efficiency and speedier decision-making.

The two were also questioned about if Utah’s abortion trigger restriction was the target of the proposals. While the Utah Supreme Court considers whether the statute is constitutional, it is presently on pause due to an injunction. A lower court first overturned the abortion trigger ban, allowing abortions in Utah up until 18 weeks of pregnancy.

Laws pertaining to transgender females participating in girls’ sports and redrawing political borders were also blocked by lower courts, but some are still pending.

Mckell stated that he was unsure if the trigger restriction was the reason behind this measure.
Sen. Brammer claimed in a statement that injunctions have been “overused” by subordinate courts.

“It has long been the practice in this state and our courts to assume that legislation are constitutional, with any concerns being settled in favor of constitutionality. In addition to addressing concerns regarding the excessive use of injunctions by courts to halt laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, S.B. 204 aims to guarantee that legal tools are utilized in a manner that respects the functions of all three institutions of government. He stated, “I think this will help preserve the integrity of Utah’s process of upholding the rule of law.”

Brammer contended that plaintiffs must demonstrate harm in order to establish third-party standing under S.B. 204.

“Since our state’s founding, we have required that plaintiffs show … a personal stake in the outcome of [each] legal dispute,” Brammer stated, quoting Chief Justice Durrant. “S.B. 203 aims to preserve the integrity of the courts and help keep them from becoming a forum de jour for out-of-state interests that cannot meet the traditional standing requirements, while also preserving access to the justice system for those with grievances.”

Nonetheless, Greg Skordas, a local defense lawyer, said that the legal profession will be greatly impacted by these two measures.

The legislature is attempting to make it more difficult for organizations to contest the constitutionality of laws they enact with Senate Bill 203. “It reduces the number of people or organizations that can bring a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of legislation,” he said.
According to Skordas, “both bills are probably unconstitutional and will probably be challenged shortly after they are enacted.”

Additionally, he disapproved of the legislature’s choice to alter the judiciary.

“Tens of thousands of dollars are spent by taxpayers to defend (and ultimately lose) in court over these kinds of bills,” he stated. “It’s essentially a reflexive response to our courts and certain recent rulings that halt the execution of dubious laws until their constitutionality can be established.”