Utah’s chief justice used his yearly address to lawmakers to push back on a Republican-backed proposal to expand the Utah Supreme Court, arguing that changes to the state’s top judicial panel would invite political pressure and strain the boundary between the legislature and the judiciary.
Speaking Tuesday during the legislature’s annual 45-day session that began the same day, Chief Justice Matthew Durrant cautioned lawmakers against actions he said could amount to “meddling with the judiciary,” as Republicans looked to add justices to the high court.
Republican legislative leaders and Gov. Spencer Cox have said they support expanding the Supreme Court from a five-judge panel to seven justices, arguing the change would speed up the court’s decision-making, an argument that has drawn countervailing concerns from legal experts.
Durrant, in his remarks to lawmakers, urged lawmakers not to impose penalties on the judiciary after it issues rulings they dislike. “I ask that your disappointment with a few results not lead to penalties for an entire branch of government and, by extension, penalties for your constituents,” he said, and he added that the Supreme Court does not challenge the legislature’s integrity in its opinions while asking lawmakers for the same courtesy when they challenge legal outcomes.
While Durrant said it remained the Legislature’s prerogative to expand the Supreme Court, he urged lawmakers to prioritize adding judges to lower courts instead, where he said the need is greater, describing the Supreme Court as an area he believes is not where resources would help most.
Cox’s proposed state budget includes nearly $2.8 million that he said could help pay for two more Supreme Court justices. John Pearce, who recently retired as an associate chief justice on the high court, said the money could go further in district and trial courts, and he argued that the plan for more justices at the Supreme Court level could slow the process rather than make it faster. “If we’re really concerned about the efficiency of the judiciary, there are places where money would be much better spent than at the Supreme Court,” Pearce said in an interview. “If what the Legislature is hoping to do is get opinions out more quickly, adding justices will slow that process down.”
The proposal comes amid broader friction between the Utah Legislature and the judiciary, as courts have issued rulings that lawmakers have sought to overcome or appeal. The legislative agenda has included defeats for abortion restrictions, rules affecting transgender athletes, and limits on the Legislature’s ability to change or repeal voter-approved initiatives.
The Legislature is also preparing to appeal a redistricting ruling that gave Democrats a stronger opening to pick up one of Utah’s four congressional seats held by Republicans, a political backdrop that has also featured an earlier December special session in which Republican lawmakers voted to take authority from Supreme Court justices to pick their own chief justice and instead let the governor choose.
Legal experts and academics also pointed to other states’ experiences as a warning. Most states have five or seven Supreme Court justices, but a few have nine, and Cox has said adding two more seats would align Utah with other states of its size. Peterson, a University of Utah law professor, said Utah could face a similar efficiency problem to one he described in other states: “Another few cooks in the kitchen doesn’t necessarily get the cake baked any quicker,” he said, adding that he suggested creating a judicial clerk position for each justice to help them work faster.
Peterson also warned that adding justices could escalate beyond Utah if political actors do not get their way in court. “The fear is that if powerful political interests don’t get their way, they can simply add new justices to a state or even the federal Supreme Court to try to overturn decisions,” he said. “It can escalate and undermine trust in our government.”
Cox has denied that the effort to expand the Supreme Court is politically motivated, saying that Republican governors and senators have made all of the most recent appointments to the court. The proposal is also one element of a broader set of changes being considered by Republican lawmakers, which includes increasing the number of judges for the district court, juvenile court and the Court of Appeals.