Utah Courts Face New Procedures Under HB 392
- thelineinfo
- 2 hours ago
- 3 min read
by Jacob Rueda
Earlier in February, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed a bill that directly impacts how the judiciary operates in the state.
House Bill 392, sponsored by Rep. Matt MacPherson (R-West Valley City), would have created a new constitutional court to handle lawsuits filed by citizens against the state. The revised bill eliminates the proposed court and instead utilizes district courts.
If a person sues the state, the Attorney General, Governor, or Legislature can file a notice that automatically moves the case to a three‑judge district court panel in place of the new court. That notice cannot be challenged or reviewed. The case is no longer tied to normal venue rules, and any appeal must go directly to the Utah Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals entirely.
During the initial committee hearing where the bill was introduced, opposition to it was overwhelming. Groups like the ACLU of Utah and the Utah State Bar Association testified against the bill, warning that it would undermine Utahns’ ability to challenge the state and could shift significant power toward political parties in ways that affect how courts handle those cases.
Despite vehement opposition from groups and residents alike, the bill was voted out of committee. Utah State Bar executive director Elizabeth Wright said HB 392 shifts power toward the state and damages public trust.
“What they are saying is, ‘Not all judges ruled the same. It's not fair and impartial, it's not independent and we can game the system,” Wright said. “‘If [the State] could get judges from outside of Salt Lake City, we 're gonna get better results.’”
In an email exchange with TheLine.Info, MacPherson said the reason for introducing the bill was to prevent the hold up of new laws from being enacted.
“Many of our laws, duly enacted through the legislative process and signed by the governor, were being enjoined by single judges,” he said, “Typically in one jurisdiction (the same jurisdiction) and then being held in limbo for years.”
MacPherson cited Utah’s abortion trigger law as an example. The law (SB 174) was signed in 2020 but it is being blocked by a court injunction. The law would ban most abortions in the state. Because of the injunction, abortion remains legal in Utah.
Such injunctions are “unfair” to Utahns who voted for representatives to enact laws, according to MacPherson.Although Wright agreed that a challenge to a law can take a while to process, she pushed back saying that injunctions are a normal part of constitutional litigation and serve a specific purpose.
“It's kind of the price we pay as a society,” she said, “That if we want to find truth and have a higher court rule on these really important issues, we're going to maintain the status quo until everything's resolved, so all the facts are found, the law is analyzed, [and] until the highest court speaks.”
Another issue MacPherson brought up is frivolous lawsuits, especially those brought by fringe or extremist groups. The three-judge panel would filter such cases out of the court, making way for more legitimate cases to move forward, he said.
“There is also the practical consideration of the fact that even sovereign citizens would be able to sue the state government claiming state laws do not apply to them,” he said, “And they are unconstitutional and demand a panel court, which would instantly and permanently bog the court down with thousands of these cases.”
Sovereign citizens are individuals who don’t believe they are subject to government rules and regulations. They assert their own interpretation of Constitutional law and see themselves as separate from regular citizens.
While states like Florida and California have a large population of sovereign citizens, Utah is also experiencing a rise in their numbers. Wright said that despite the Legislature and the Bar itself being sued by sovereign citizens in the past, such cases are part of an open-court system.
“It's the people's court and they're allowed to file,” she said, “Sometimes there are unfounded lawsuits and frivolous lawsuits. There are different ways judges can determine that people are vexatious litigants, and after so many filings, they can try to put limits on how they can file.”
Wright also expressed doubt whether HB 392 would effectively filter such cases out of the courts.
Beyond individual cases, Wright said the bill signifies a significant change in how constitutional challenges are managed. By allowing only the state to move cases to a special panel and directly to the Utah Supreme Court, HB 392 shifts the balance of power between regular citizens and the government, impacting how future disputes are settled.
The long‑term impact of the bill will depend on how often the state chooses to use its new authority. HB 392 goes into effect in May.
Comments