Utah Supreme Court changes will affect us all. It’s time to pay attention

Every precedent set in pursuit of political victory eventually outlives the people who created it. 

Protections weakened for political opponents rarely stay limited to political opponents. The real test of democratic principles is not whether we uphold them when they benefit our allies. It is whether we uphold them when doing so feels inconvenient, frustrating, or politically costly.

Robert Bolt captured this tension powerfully in “A Man for All Seasons”:

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

Utah’s judiciary has increasingly found itself caught in a growing national conflict over judicial independence and constitutional governance. Across the country, courts have faced mounting political pressure after rulings involving elections, redistricting, and executive authority. In some states, that pressure has led to efforts to reshape courts themselves.

Recently, Justice Diana Hagen became the subject of leaked confidential Judicial Conduct Commission records, despite the commission having found the allegations to be “speculative, overstated, and misleading.” Utah’s judicial guidelines emphasize that judges must decide cases impartially and based solely on law and facts. For that reason, the judiciary should remain insulated from political and public pressure to function properly.

Instead, the release and public amplification of those allegations transformed an internal judicial process into a political weapon. Judges should be accountable, but accountability depends on evidence, due process, and fairness, not strategic leaks and public spectacle. Even disputed allegations can make it nearly impossible for judges to carry out their roles effectively, regardless of the underlying findings. In this case, the controversy ultimately created a vacancy on Utah’s highest court.

Compounding these concerns, last October lawmakers stripped the court of its ability to choose its own chief justice, shifting even more influence to the governor. Then, in January, the legislature passed a bill expanding the Utah Supreme Court from five justices to seven, creating two new seats for Gov. Spencer Cox to appoint.

Against that backdrop, Chief Justice Matthew Durrant’s recently announced retirement creates yet another vacancy, giving Cox unusual influence over the composition, leadership, and direction of Utah’s highest court.

State supreme courts often have a more direct impact on people’s daily lives than the U.S. Supreme Court. They rule on cases involving education, property and water rights, housing and land use, elections, criminal justice, and the limits of government power. These decisions affect where people live, how communities grow, how elections function, what rights citizens retain, and how much power the government can exercise.

Cox now holds one of the most consequential responsibilities of his tenure. He appoints members of the judicial nominating commissions, which, under reduced political and professional balance requirements, screen judicial applicants and forward nominees to the governor for selection and Senate confirmation.

As the governor considers nominees for the two newly created Utah Supreme Court seats, he now also has the opportunity to fill two additional vacancies created by the resignation of Hagen and the retirement of Durrant. Together, these appointments will give him extraordinary influence over the composition and direction of Utah’s judiciary for years to come. 

Utah’s merit-based system was designed to reduce partisan influence and prioritize judicial fitness. But constitutional structures are only as strong as the integrity and restraint of the people operating within them. In politically charged environments, partisan pressure can weaken judicial independence while still operating within increasingly thin procedural boundaries.

Adam Grant captured this tension when he wrote, “Our highest loyalty doesn’t belong to people or parties. It belongs to principles. If you wouldn’t accept it from your opponents, you shouldn’t accept it from your allies.”

Democracies are not lost all at once. They gradually weaken when citizens become overwhelmed, when constitutional principles are abandoned for short-term victories, and when institutions designed to restrain power are reshaped into tools for wielding it.

These appointments will determine whether Utah strengthens a judiciary grounded in independence, fairness, and constitutional restraint, or follows the growing national trend toward increasingly politicized courts and democratic erosion.

This moment is bigger than party. Bigger than ideology. Bigger than any single ruling.

Gov. Cox, Utahns are paying attention.