Some of the most contentious legal issues in the state could go before a new panel of three judges chosen by the governor and confirmed by the Senate under a new bill before the Utah House of Representatives.
Rep. Matt MacPherson’s H392 would set up a new Constitutional Court, whose judges would have jurisdiction over challenges to the constitutionality of laws passed by the Legislature.
Currently, those cases land before any of Utah’s 78 district court judges.
“This will lead to consistent and faster decision making in this court, which is the most important,” MacPherson, R-West Valley City, told members of the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee on Wednesday. “We need these issues of statewide significance to not get bogged down by the court process. It leads to unintended consequences, which we have seen in recent cases.”
The bill comes on the heels of a series of court rulings in recent years that bills passed by the Republican-dominated Legislature violated the Constitution when it came to laws prohibiting abortion, banning transgender athletes in high school sports, limiting the Legislature’s power to repeal ballot initiatives and restricting lawmakers’ power to gerrymander political districts.
Members of the Utah Office of the Courts and the Utah State Bar, along with a number of attorneys, spoke Wednesday to oppose the bill, in part because it represents a significant change to the judicial system — a change, they argued, that was not made public until Tuesday afternoon. And some argued the bill created a scenario where legislators will be able to decide which judges get the first crack at reviewing the constitutionality of laws in those key, contentious issues.
(Bethany Baker | The Salt Lake Tribune) Michael Drechsel, the Assistant State Court Administrator for the Administrative Office of the Courts, speaks against HB392, which would create a new type of court to consider the constitutionality of laws, at the Utah Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2026.
“You’ve got a cart-and-horse issue where, in advance of filing a case, we’re pre-selecting the judges who would adjudicate those cases … and giving people who will be litigating the case on one side of the case the ability to define those judges,” said Michael Drechsel, assistant state court administrator. “That’s not a way to establish a system that is seen as fair for all people.”
Likewise, Tyler Young, president-elect of the Utah State Bar, said that the bill is designed to protect the government from having the enactment of laws blocked by the courts, “rather than protecting citizens from unconstitutional action.”
He said it creates a “structural bias” toward allowing the enforcement of laws that might be unconstitutional and could undermine public trust in the independence of the judicial branch.
Despite the opposition, the committee voted along party lines to move forward with MacPherson’s bill, along with SB134, sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Chris Wilson, R-Logan, that would allow Cox to appoint two new justices to the Utah Supreme Court.
Wilson’s bill, which has already passed the Senate and is supported by Cox, would also add two judges to the Court of Appeals and three judges at the district court level.
The Senate-approved court expansion bill now heads to the House floor for a vote.
The combined cost for both bills would be about $9 million in the first year, and $4.5 million each year after.
Wilson contends his bill is intended to address a backlog in the court system, although Chief Justice Matthew Durrant told lawmakers at the opening of the session that the Supreme Court has “essentially no backlog” in cases.
(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) Sen. Chris Wilson, R-Logan, presents SB134, a bill that increases the number of judges on the Utah Supreme Court justices to seven on Thursday, Jan. 22, 2026.
The lower courts, meanwhile, had a backlog of more than 8,000 cases at the end of 2025 and judges who are handling 130% of the optimal caseload. Durrant emphasized that resources are needed for the lower courts, and has asked the Legislature for seven district court judges and a juvenile court judge.
MacPherson rejected the argument that his bill was intended to change the outcome of cases after the Legislature suffered defeats in the courts — however, he has been among the legislators most publicly outraged by those decisions.
Last year, in the wake of 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson’s decisions striking down Utah’s congressional boundaries as an unlawful gerrymander and imposing a new map that created a Democratic-leaning U.S. House district, MacPherson posted on social media that he planned to impeach the judge.
In a special legislative session in December, Republican lawmakers also stripped the Supreme Court justices of the ability to choose their own chief justice, handing that power to Cox, and passed a resolution condemning the courts for perceived judicial activism.
Additionally, bills pending this session look to make it harder for judges to win their retention elections and aim to allow the Legislature to force a judge to stand for a retention election if the judge is incompetent or issues a ruling perceived to overstep the court’s role.
Note to readers • The Salt Lake Tribune is making this story about the Utah Legislature free to all. Donate to support our nonprofit newsroom.