Utah Chief Justice Matthew Durrant urged caution as Republican leaders and Gov. Spencer Cox propose expanding the state Supreme Court from five to seven justices during the 45-day legislative session. Cox included nearly $2.8 million in his budget to fund the two new seats, but critics — including a retired justice and law professors — argue the move could slow opinion writing, politicize the court, and set a dangerous precedent. Experts recommend directing funds to lower courts or adding clerks to improve efficiency.
Utah Chief Justice Warns Against Expanding State Supreme Court as GOP Proposes Adding Two Seats
Chief Justice Matthew Durrant stands in the House of Representatives as he delivers the State of the Judiciary address on the first day of the 2026 legislative session in Salt Lake City, on Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2026. (The Deseret News via AP)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah’s chief justice warned lawmakers Tuesday against using court expansion as a response to unpopular rulings, as Republican leaders and Gov. Spencer Cox push to grow the state Supreme Court from five justices to seven during the Legislature’s 45-day session.
Arguments For and Against Expansion
Republican legislative leaders and Gov. Cox say adding two justices would speed decision-making at the high court; Cox included nearly $2.8 million in his proposed budget to help fund the additional seats. Supporters also note that many states have five or seven justices, and they argue that the change would align Utah with states of similar size.
Rep. Clinton Okerlund, R-Sandy, left, speaks with Chief Justice Matthew Durrant prior to Justice Durrant delivering the State of the Judiciary address on the first day of the 2026 legislative session in Salt Lake City, on Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2026. (The Deseret News via AP)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)
But legal scholars and former justices caution that enlarging the court could have the opposite effect. They say more justices can slow opinion production because more reviewers must weigh in, and they warn the move could set a troubling political precedent at a time of heightened tension between the branches of government.
Context: Recent Court-Legislature Conflicts
The proposal follows several high-profile rulings in which Utah courts blocked or rolled back measures backed by lawmakers, including limits on abortion, restrictions affecting transgender athletes, and efforts to alter or repeal voter-approved initiatives. Lawmakers are also preparing an appeal of a redistricting decision that gave Democrats a stronger chance to flip one of Utah’s four Republican-held U.S. House seats this fall.
House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, left, and Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, share a laugh prior to listening to Chief Justice Matthew Durrant delivering the State of the Judiciary address on the first day of the 2026 legislative session in Salt Lake City, on Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2026. (The Deseret News via AP)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)
“I ask that your disappointment with a few results not lead to penalties for an entire branch of government and, by extension, penalties for your constituents,” Chief Justice Matthew Durrant said in his annual address to lawmakers.
Durrant emphasized that while the Legislature has the authority to change the court’s size, he urged that resources be directed first to lower courts — district, juvenile and trial courts — where the need for judges and staff is more acute.
Practical Alternatives and Precedents
Retired Associate Chief Justice John Pearce suggested Cox’s proposed funds could be spent more effectively in district and trial courts to improve overall judicial efficiency. University of Utah law professor Chris Peterson recommended hiring additional clerks for justices as a targeted way to speed opinion writing rather than increasing the bench.
Chief Justice Matthew Durrant exits the House after delivering the State of the Judiciary address on the first day of the 2026 legislative session in Salt Lake City, on Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2026. (The Deseret News via AP)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)
Arizona and Georgia both added high-court justices in recent years after citing efficiency concerns. Some Arizona justices later said the expansion reduced efficiency because more reviewers were required to finalize opinions — a cautionary example cited by opponents.
Recent Legislative Moves
In a December special session, Republican lawmakers voted to transfer authority for selecting the state’s chief justice from the court itself to the governor. They also passed a resolution censuring the court over the redistricting decision, and one lawmaker called for impeachment of the judge involved. Gov. Cox denies the proposal to add justices is politically motivated, noting recent appointees were chosen by Republican governors and confirmed by Republican senators.
Members of the House of Representatives and Senate listen as Chief Justice Matthew Durrant delivers the State of the Judiciary address on the first day of the 2026 legislative session in Salt Lake City, on Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2026. (The Deseret News via AP)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)
Why It Matters
Expanding a high court for short-term political gain risks eroding public trust in judicial independence. Critics warn that if enlarging courts becomes a tool to reverse disagreeable rulings, it could spark escalation and weaken confidence in government institutions.
Bottom line: The debate centers on whether growth would truly improve judicial efficiency or instead slow the Supreme Court and invite politicization — while many experts urge prioritizing investments in lower courts and support staff.
Help us improve.
