Utah justices weigh law shifting cases to three-judge panels

The Utah Supreme Court heard arguments Oct. 5 in three challenges to a state law that allows certain cases against the government to be heard by randomly selected panels of three district-court judges. The justices took the matters under advisement. The Utah Supreme Court heard the arguments in Salt Lake City on Oct. 5.

The cases involve disputes over Utah’s near-total abortion ban, legislative redistricting and state fossil-fuel permits. The hearing focused on whether the Legislature had authority to create the panel process—not on whether the claims in those lawsuits should succeed.

How the panel law works

Under HB 392, the attorney general, governor or Legislature may file notice to convene a three-judge panel when specified conditions are met. The provision applies to civil cases challenging state action and seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. Judges are selected randomly and must come from different judicial districts.

The three matters are Planned Parenthood v. Stormont, League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature and Roberts v. Department of Natural Resources. They are docketed as 20260235, 20260236 and 20260246. The fossil-fuel-permits case was brought by 10 young Utah plaintiffs. Other cases could be subject to the process if they meet the law’s requirements; the court’s current review concerns these three challenges.

Arguments over legislative authority

The challengers argued that the Legislature exceeded its constitutional authority by changing how qualifying cases are assigned. They raised separation-of-powers concerns and said the transfers disrupted or delayed their lawsuits. Those claims concern the effect of the transfer process; the court has not made findings on them.

The state defended the Legislature’s authority to set court procedures. It argued that panels could benefit cases of statewide importance. Supporters have also cited preventing forum shopping as a rationale for the process. Those are arguments in support of the law, not conclusions reached by the justices.

During the hearing, the justices questioned attorneys about the limits of legislative power and about HB 366, a separate law with a fallback provision involving a Constitutional Court if the three-judge-panel arrangement is found unconstitutional. The questioning raised how that provision might relate to a ruling against the panel arrangement; the court has not determined whether or how the fallback would apply.

The cases remain pending

The Supreme Court’s decision will address the challenges to the panel process and could determine whether it may be used in these three lawsuits. It could also affect how the process applies in other cases that meet HB 392’s criteria, though its reach will depend on the court’s ruling.

The court had not issued a decision by Oct. 7, and no decision date had been reported. The parties’ underlying disputes over abortion restrictions, redistricting and fossil-fuel permits were not decided at the hearing.