SB 134 increases the size of Utah’s Supreme Court, adds state appellate judges and adds judges to three judicial districts. Gov. Spencer Cox signed the bill’s second substitute on Jan. 31, and it will take effect May 6. The Utah State Bar opposed adding justices to the Supreme Court but supported adding district and appellate judges.
The bill adds two seats to the Supreme Court and two seats to the Court of Appeals. It also adds one judge to the 3rd, 4th and 5th judicial districts, which include Salt Lake, Utah and Washington counties. Lawmakers say the changes will help the courts manage caseloads and population growth, while Bar leaders say the Supreme Court expansion is unnecessary and could strain resources.
The Legislature’s perspective
The bill adds two seats to the Supreme Court and two seats to the Court of Appeals. It also adds one judge to each of the 3rd, 4th and 5th judicial districts, which includes Salt Lake, Utah and Washington counties. These are some of the most populated counties in the state, according to the World Population Review.
Rep. Casey Snider, the bill’s House sponsor, said the court amendments will improve the courts’ capacity and resources. “We feel that, here in the Legislature, some critical rulings have just not moved,” he said. “[The Supreme Court has] one of the lowest amounts of case volume in the country.”
Speaker Mike Schultz said the bill will improve the courts’ efficiency in response to the state’s growing population. “The issues going before the courts … are more complicated today and have a much bigger impact on the citizens of the state,” he said. “Having seven sets of eyes … on these big ticket items is much better than having five sets of eyes.”
Snider added that the court’s recent decisions have weakened trust between the judicial and legislative branches in Utah. “There’s really been some cases that one must scratch their head over,” he said.
He mentioned the Supreme Court’s August 2025 decision in Armenta v. Unified Fire Authority. The court unanimously agreed to reverse the Third District Court’s dismissal, remanding the case to further litigation. Lawmakers opposed how the decision made first responders more legally vulnerable. “How did the court get that so wrong?” asked Snider. “That’s one of those ones that I think actually fosters a distrust of what sort of deliberative process is happening.”
The Bar’s perspective
Elizabeth Wright, executive director of the Utah State Bar, said increasing the size of the Supreme Court is unnecessary and damaging to the state’s legal system. “Our judiciary … is supposed to work for the people of Utah, not the Legislature,” she said.
Wright said she’s concerned about the cost of paying new Supreme Court justices and their staff, which will come out of taxpayer dollars. She said she thinks the Legislature should spend those funds supporting the state’s free legal aid, the Attorney General’s office, district judges and IT resources.
She said the courts have asked the Legislature for additional appellate judges for several years, but have been repeatedly denied. Wright said adding more judges would improve efficiency because appellate judges review cases in three‑judge panels. The Supreme Court, however, must deliberate as a full court.
Wright said adding justices to the bench would only slow the process. “If they really want to speed things up, they should just have one judge,” she said jokingly.
Wright said the state’s population growth is causing issues in the district and juvenile courts, rather than the Supreme Court. “The money and the resources should be directed there, because that’s where it helps Utah citizens,” she said.
According to Wright, the Supreme Court’s backlog of cases was a result of the coronavirus pandemic. “They were slow in issuing opinions, but they have caught up,” she said. “The Administrative Office of the Courts would like more judicial assistants, who manage much of the courts’ administrative legwork.”
Chief Justice Matthew Durrant also attributed the Supreme Court’s backlog to the pandemic and said that the workload has returned to normal. In this year’s State of the Judiciary Address, he requested $6 million in additional funding for court staff retention and hiring. “The need for additional judges is much greater in our lower courts than in the Supreme Court,” Durrant said.
Wright said she is most concerned about the long-term effects of the legislation. She said political interference in the courts harms the public’s faith in the judicial system. She said she feels the legislative branch is encroaching on the power of the judiciary. “We’re being fired upon,” she said.
Wright said she views this issue as a symptom of nationwide tensions between the courts and other branches of government. “There have been days when I have been very blue about these attacks on the judiciary,” Wright said. “Our democracy has endured for 250 years, and I’m hoping we’ll get beyond this too, and that our systems and structures will be resilient.”
