Legislative leaders had hoped their lawyers would be allowed to argue in the case over SB2, an omnibus bill lawmakers passed in March that included several education measures that failed on their own. In May, 38 plaintiffs - including lawmakers, Utah State Board of Education members and other education leaders - sued over SB2, saying the law was unconstitutional because it contained more than one subject.

Legislative leaders have defended the bill, saying they had to pass the measures as one bill for the sake of time, and the bill is about one subject: education.

But the plaintiffs didn't sue lawmakers; they sued several state officials charged with helping to carry out the law. Robert Rees, legislative associate general counsel, argued Wednesday that legislative lawyers should also be involved because the case is not just about the constitutionality of the bill but also the processes by which the legislature passes laws.

"This case has the potential to affect the way the legislature conducts business," Rees told Third District Court Judge L.A. Dever. "This is an attack on the legislature itself."

He said legislative lawyers would bring a perspective to the case that the Utah Attorney General's Office, which is representing the officials involved, cannot.

Alan Smith, an attorney for the plaintiffs, however, argued allowing legislative lawyers to intervene would be a conflict of interest. They cannot argue on behalf of the legislature when several of the plaintiffs are lawmakers, Smith said. He also said the Attorney General's Office can adequately argue the case alone, a fact he said lawmakers have already acknowledged in law.

"The [Attorney General's Office] is perfectly capable of addressing the constitutional issue," Smith said. "The legislative office is hamstrung because they have a conflict."

Dever ultimately decided not to let legislative lawyers intervene, saying they have no right to do so and that the Attorney General's Office can adequately handle the case.

Dever also denied Rees' request to let legislative lawyers file a brief in the case. He said it will be up to the Attorney General's Office whether to use any input from legislative lawyers.

Plaintiff Thomas Gregory, who also serves on the state school board and attended the hearing, said he was pleased with the ruling.

"More importantly to me, it moves us closer to actually adjudicating the question we're arguing in the first place," Gregory said.

Plaintiffs are not necessarily seeking to stop parts of the law from going forward at this point, said David Irvine, an attorney for the plaintiffs, because it's already so late in the year. He said they are mainly seeking a ruling that the bill and process are unconstitutional.

Measures included in the omnibus bill that either failed on the House floor or in committee on their own include a pilot at-home software program for preschoolers, changes to the way charter schools are funded, extra funding for International Baccalaureate programs, and supplemental pay for qualified math and science teachers.