As tensions have grown between lawmakers and the courts, many of the safeguards that once dispersed influence over judicial selection have been removed, culminating in an unusually rapid reshaping of Utah’s highest court.

The Appellate Judicial Nominating Commission is one of the most influential bodies in Utah’s judicial selection process. The commission screens Supreme Court applicants and forwards a shortlist of nominees for to the governor.

For decades, appointments to the commission were divided among the governor, the Utah State Bar, and the judiciary to provide balance. In 2023, lawmakers passed a bill transferring all commission appointment authority to the governor. As a result, the commission is now composed entirely of individuals selected by the governor.

Before this 2023 bill passed, no more than four of the commission’s seven voting members could belong to the same political party. The rule was intended to ensure that no single party could dominate the commission. Legislators eliminated that safeguard.

Changes to the commission is not the only reform affecting the Utah Supreme Court. In 2025, lawmakers removed the Supreme Court’s authority to choose its own Chief Justice and transferred that power to the governor. Because the Chief Justice plays a central role in the administration and leadership of the court, the change gave the governor additional influence over Utah’s highest court.

The implications of these changes became more consequential.

In 2018, Utah voters approved Proposition 4, establishing the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission to reduce partisan influence in the map-drawing process. The measure became the subject of litigation and political conflict between lawmakers and groups seeking to preserve the voter-approved reforms. The conflict intensified after the Utah Supreme Court left a lower court ruling intact, allowing Proposition 4 and a less partisan congressional map to remain in place for the 2026 election cycle.

After the Proposition 4 ruling, one Republican legislator called for impeachment, while others urged voters to remove Supreme Court justices in retention elections. That matters because fair and impartial courts depend on judges being able to decide cases based on the law, without fear of political retaliation.

Elected officials disagreeing with court decisions is a normal part of constitutional government. The deeper concern is that unfavorable rulings have increasingly been used to justify efforts to reshape the judiciary.

In January 2026, lawmakers expanded the Utah Supreme Court from five justices to seven, citing efficiency and workload concerns. Yet the Utah Supreme Court itself and the Utah State Bar publicly stated that the court was not experiencing the kind of backlog that would justify expansion. Many within Utah’s legal community argued that it was an unnecessary use of public resources.

Nevertheless, lawmakers moved forward with the expansion, appropriating millions of dollars to create and support two new Supreme Court seats. For some, the disconnect between the stated rationale and the concerns raised by the judiciary itself has escalated concerns about recent judicial reforms.

Whether the expansion will improve efficiency remains unclear. Experiences in other states have produced mixed results, with some reporting that additional justices actually slowed decision-making. What is certain is that the expansion altered the structure of Utah’s highest court. On a five-member court, three justices form a majority. On a seven-member court, four votes are required. The change therefore affects not only the size of the court, but also how majorities are formed and cases are decided. Combined with the recent expansion and multiple vacancies, it has created an unusual opportunity to reshape the court’s composition and, by extension, the direction of its future rulings. Those rulings will shape issues that affect every Utahn.

The court’s expansion was soon followed by additional developments. 

In May, confidential allegations about a justice that had already been found to be “speculative, overstated, and misleading” were leaked to the public. Even allegations about a judge’s fitness can make it extraordinarily difficult to continue serving effectively, regardless of the underlying facts. The resulting pressure ultimately led to a resignation and created a vacancy on Utah’s highest court.

Then Justice Matthew Durrant announced his retirement, creating another vacancy.

These vacancies, combined with the court’s recent expansion, set the stage for a rapid reshaping of Utah’s highest court.

Recently, the appellate judicial nominating commission submitted 12 nominees to Governor Cox for consideration. Six had no prior judicial experience.

From that group, Governor Cox selected not one, but two candidates who have never served on the bench: Jay Jorgensen and Stephen Dent. Judicial experience provides a record that can be examined and evaluated before appointment to the state’s highest court, making those selections particularly noteworthy. 

In a short period of time, Governor Cox will have appointed six of the seven members of the Utah Supreme Court. Four of the court’s seven justices will be new, including two without prior judicial experience. Another was appointed less than a year ago, and two additional appointments remain pending. For a court of last resort, that combination of rapid turnover and limited judicial experience should give Utahns pause.

Whatever one’s views of these changes, structural reforms should be evaluated based on their long-term effects on the balance of power, not whether they produce preferred outcomes in the short term. The safeguards we weaken for opponents today do not remain limited to our opponents tomorrow.

That is why the rapid reshaping of Utah’s highest court deserves careful public attention. If courts can be pressured, punished, or reshaped when politicians dislike their rulings, every Utahn, regardless of party, should be concerned. The consequences will extend far beyond any single case, election, governor, or legislative session.

---

Utah friends: Please read, share, and most importantly, act!

In just a few years, Utah’s highest court has undergone a series of changes that have concentrated more influence over judicial selection and contributed to an unusually rapid turnover on the Utah Supreme Court.

Why should you care? Because courts are one of the safeguards that protect our rights, our freedoms, and our ability to hold those in power accountable. Independent courts protect all of us.

Regardless of where you fall politically, the safeguards we weaken for opponents today do not remain limited to our opponents tomorrow. As we have seen with the Box Elder Stratos project, public involvement can make a difference.

Public comments close Tuesday, June 16 at 5:00 p.m.

Please consider:

• Submit a public comment: senatejudicialnominees@le.utah.gov 
• Contact your Utah state senator: https://senate.utah.gov/senate-roster/
  • Find your state senator: https://le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp
• Help to spread the word!

*Below are a couple sample scripts to make it easy. Feel free to copy, modify, and personalize these templates.

---

[Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee], or [Senator]

I urge the Senate to carefully evaluate the qualifications of the current Supreme Court nominees.

These appointments are occurring during a period of unprecedented change to Utah’s highest court. In a short period of time, Governor Cox will have appointed six of the court’s seven members. Such a concentration of appointment authority makes the Senate’s review role especially important.

I am particularly concerned by the appointment of candidates without prior judicial experience when multiple sitting judges were available for consideration. Judicial experience provides a record that can be examined and evaluated and should carry significant weight when selecting justices to serve on Utah’s court of last resort.

I respectfully ask the Senate to conduct a thorough and independent review of these nominees and to place judicial experience, demonstrated impartiality, and commitment to judicial independence at the center of its evaluation.

Sincerely,

[Name]
[Address]
[Telephone Number]

---

[Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee], or [Senator]

Serving on a state’s highest court is not simply an extension of practicing law. Prior judicial experience provides a record that can be examined and evaluated. It allows the public, the governor, and the Senate to assess how a candidate exercises judicial authority, applies precedent, manages proceedings, and reasons through difficult legal questions.

Governor Cox was presented with multiple sitting judges among the nominees forwarded by the appellate judicial nominating commission. Nevertheless, he selected two candidates who have never served on the bench.

Judicial experience should not be viewed as an absolute requirement. Exceptional candidates can emerge directly from legal practice. Historically, however, such appointments have been the exception rather than the rule because judicial service provides a demonstrated record of decision-making that legal practice alone cannot.

These nominations also occur during a period of unprecedented change. In a short period of time, Governor Cox will have appointed six of the seven members of the Utah Supreme Court. Regardless of political party, that is an extraordinary concentration of influence over the composition of Utah’s highest court.

For that reason, the Senate’s independent review role is more important than ever. I respectfully urge senators to carefully evaluate whether these nominees possess the experience, judgment, and demonstrated record appropriate for service on Utah’s court of last resort.

Sincerely,

[Name]
[Address]
[Telephone Number]