Could Utah’s judicial system be on the brink of a major overhaul? Last week, Gov. Spencer Cox announced his support for increasing the Utah Supreme Court from five to seven justices, a move that’s sparking debate among conservatives concerned about judicial overreach, as the Salt Lake Tribune reports.
This development centers on Cox’s push to bolster judicial resources amid Utah’s growth, following contentious court rulings that have frustrated Republican lawmakers.
Earlier this year, the idea of expanding Utah’s highest court surfaced after decisions that halted a near-total abortion ban and restricted the court’s power over citizen-led ballot initiatives. These rulings have fueled tension with GOP legislators. Many conservatives view such judicial activism as a challenge to legislative authority.
Utah’s population has surged over the past few decades, far beyond what it was 20 or 40 years ago. Cox argues this growth justifies additional justices, noting that medium to larger states often maintain seven to nine on their high courts. But is bigger always better?
During his Nov. 26 news conference, Cox confirmed his stance on expansion. He also advocated for more resources for the court of appeals and district courts to speed up case backlogs. Some might wonder if this risks diluting the court’s focus.
“There’s a reason most medium-sized states to larger states start to move to the seven-to-nine justice range,” Cox said. Yet, conservatives might counter that efficiency doesn’t guarantee alignment with Utah’s values -- quantity shouldn’t trump principle.
Currently, all five Utah Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican governors and confirmed by GOP senators. This fact offers some reassurance to conservatives wary of a liberal tilt. Still, recent rulings suggest ideology isn’t always predictable.
The court’s workload provides context for Cox’s proposal, with 58 opinions issued by November of this year, compared to 47 last year and just 27 in 2023. Over the past decade, the average has been 61 rulings annually. Does this justify a drastic change?
Historically, the court averaged 72 decisions per year over the last 20 years, hinting at a declining output. Expansion might aim to address delays, but conservatives could argue that quality, not speed, should guide justice. Haste risks error.
In October, Cox nominated Judge John J. Nielsen to fill a court vacancy, initially calling expansion merely “worth considering.” Now, with Nielsen’s appointment, Cox will have named three of the five justices. That’s a significant imprint on the bench.
If the court grows to seven, Cox would appoint five of those seats. With Chief Justice Matthew Durrant’s retirement expected in coming years, Cox could select six of seven justices. Such dominance might unease those valuing judicial independence.
“I didn’t have that same consternation, and I think it’s a good idea,” Cox said regarding GOP frustration with the court. But conservatives might ask: Does this expansion subtly shift power, even if not labeled as court-packing?
Expanding state high courts isn’t common, but precedents exist from 2016 when Arizona grew from five to seven justices amid GOP criticism of insufficient conservatism. Georgia expanded from seven to nine, flipping a Democrat majority to Republican. Outcomes vary widely.
In the wake of the expansion, Arizona’s rulings rose from an average of 39 to 43 annually, while Georgia saw fewer decisions. This mixed bag suggests expansion doesn’t guarantee efficiency. Conservatives might caution against following trends without clear benefits.
Finally, since Utah’s justice count is set by law, not the state Constitution, no amendment is needed for change. While Cox frames this as a practical update, conservatives under President Donald Trump’s leadership might urge vigilance to ensure judicial balance isn’t quietly upended.
