Chief justice says disagreement is healthy, but wants lawmakers to stop disparaging Utah’s courts

As Republican legislators gear up for a sweeping overhaul of Utah’s judiciary, the state’s chief justice, Matthew Durrant, pleaded with lawmakers to refrain from personal attacks on individual judges and extend some grace to the institution of the courts.

Disagreements between the courts and the Legislature are healthy and should be “celebrated,” Durrant said during his annual State of the Judiciary address on the opening day of the 2026 legislative session.

“The problem comes when we cross over from substantive disagreement to personal attack, to attacks on motive, integrity, and good faith,” Durrant said, urging lawmakers to act more like judges, and to form their disagreements on the merits of the arguments, “not through impugning our integrity.”

“Disagreement is inherent in our system of government,” he said. “Public disparagement of another branch is not. While polarized us-versus-them rhetoric has become common in national circles, it is not — and should not be — the norm here.”

The chief justice’s remarks come at a time when Republican legislators are furious over a series of court rulings that has stymied key pieces of their agenda — blocking a ban on almost all abortions, halting a ban on transgender girls competing in high school sports, limiting the Legislature’s ability to repeal citizen initiatives and imposing new congressional districts that could cost Republicans a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In a special legislative session late last year, Republican legislators overwhelmingly passed a resolution that “condemns” the Utah Supreme Court and lower courts for engaging in “activist rewriting of the Utah Constitution.”

“I’m afraid judicial activism has come to mean ‘a decision I disagree with,’” Durrant told lawmakers. “We apply a presumption of good faith to the work you do. I hope you will accord us that same presumption.”

Already, a number of proposals impacting the courts have been proposed for this session, most notably expanding the Utah Supreme Court from five justices to seven.

Proponents of the change say it is needed to keep up with a growing state and enable the high court to issue rulings faster. Critics say it is an attempt to pack the court with justices who are more conservative in order to tip the balance in the Legislature’s favor.

Sen. Chris Wilson, R-Logan, said Utah has had five Supreme Court justices since 1917 and the state’s population has grown from 500,000 to 3.5 million over the last century-plus. Legal filings are increasing by about 7% a year, Wilson said, so “what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to get ahead of that” by providing more justices to help with opinions.

Durrant on Tuesday pushed back against criticism of the Supreme Court’s pace, saying it’s a function of slowdowns in lower courts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Last year, he said, the caseload returned to normal and the justices issued 61 opinions, slightly above normal, and today the court has “essentially no backlog.”

While the chief justice told lawmakers it’s “your prerogative” to expand the court, he asked that it not come at the expense of lower court judges. Last year, the judiciary asked lawmakers to fund eight new judges at the district level, one juvenile judge, four commissioners and up to two court of appeals judges, but the Legislature refused.

Sen. Stephanie Pitcher, D-Salt Lake City, who is an attorney, said the backlog in the courts is at the district court level, not the Supreme Court, and the Republican arguments for adding justices “are largely pretextual” and motivated by the redistricting litigation.

“I think it is a pretty clear attempt to sway the ideology of the Supreme Court at a really critical time in that litigation process,” she said.

Among other bills this session dealing with the courts:

• A proposed constitutional amendment by Rep. Walt Brooks, R-St. George, would allow the Legislature to force a judge who is “unfit or incompetent” or who “violates the judge’s oath of office” to face a special retention vote at the next upcoming election;

• A bill by Rep. Jason Kyle, R-Huntsville, would require judges to get two-thirds of the vote in a retention election in order to keep their spot on the bench;

• And another proposed constitutional amendment, also by Kyle, would allow Gov. Spencer Cox to disregard recommendations from the Judicial Nominating Commission, which currently screens applicants, and pick anyone he wants to fill a judicial vacancy.

Additionally, House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, said Tuesday he would like to see the courts become more transparent. He said he wants judges to file financial disclosures, similar to those legislators have to submit, and would like to see the judiciary create a website allowing the public to see every ruling issued. (The court’s current website requires payments to access court rulings.)

“There are some legitimate concerns out there and transparency is one of those big issues,” Schultz told reporters on opening day.

Cox has said he supports expanding the Supreme Court, but said in an interview Tuesday he is wary of making too many changes to the courts.

“I’m cautious when it comes to anything else with the judiciary. I’m really proud of what we’ve built here,” the governor said. The Legislature already has the power to impeach a judge “if they feel strongly enough about it,” the governor said, and he would like to wait to see how other recent legislative changes impact the courts.

“Let’s see what we’ve done in the changes that have been made there and not kind of throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the good things that are happening in our judiciary versus every other state in the nation,” Cox said.

Previously, there had been some who suggested that Utah begin electing judges, but there is no bill yet this session dealing with that issue. In Utah, the governor nominates judges, who then need to be confirmed by a majority in the state senate.

Durrant said Utah’s system of selecting judges based on merit, integrity, temperament and work ethic is a model system and a sharp contrast to other states.

“In those states, judges sometimes raise millions of dollars in campaign money, and much of that money comes from the very law firms and companies whose cases will come before the judge,” Durrant said. “The potential for corruption and improper influence is obvious.”