Article, Gerrymandering, Abortion, and Much More: Cases and Issues in the Pipeline at the Utah Supreme Court

• Jurisdiction: Utah,United States
• Citation: Vol. 37 No. 1 Pg. 40
• Publication year: 2024
• Pages: 40
• Year: 2024
• topic: Administrative Law,Constitutional Law,Tax Law,Civil Procedure

Article, Gerrymandering, Abortion, and Much More: Cases and Issues in the Pipeline at the Utah Supreme Court Vol. 37 No. 1 Pg. 40 Utah Bar Journal January 2024

by Carol Funk

Over the past several years, the Utah Supreme Court has painstakingly addressed questions of state constitutional law by analyzing the original public meaning of the constitutional language at issue. The court has also emphasized that provisions in the Utah Constitution do not necessarily provide the same protections as similarly worded provisions in the federal constitution. In some cases, the court has held that protections afforded under state constitutional law are broader than protections afforded under federal constitutional law. And parties are taking note.

The court's caseload has become increasingly comprised of cases raising novel questions of state constitutional law, and this year is no exception. Parties are examining binding case law and assessing whether the principles announced therein were adopted following a rigorous constitutional analysis. Where rigorous analysis appears to be lacking, parties are challenging the case law and asking the Utah Supreme Court to construe the constitutional language in accordance with its original public meaning.

The decisions to be issued by the Utah Supreme Court this year will, in many cases, prove highly consequential. This is due in part to the numerous cases raising questions of state constitutional law. But many other cases on the court's docket will also result in opinions with significant ramifications. That is particularly true with respect to criminal law, as parties to criminal proceedings frequently encounter questions of substantial import and regularly raise those questions before the Utah Supreme Court.

Providing Visibility into the Cases and Issues Under Review in the Utah Supreme Court

It is critically important for members of the Utah Bar to be informed of cases and issues under review in the Utah Supreme Court. Attorneys can more effectively raise and preserve errors, craft arguments, make decisions, and assess the strength or weakness of a claim or charge if they are aware of changes in the law that may be forthcoming. This article thus provides visibility into the cases and issues currently in the pipeline at the Utah Supreme Court.

This article was compiled based on matters listed as pending in the Utah Supreme Court in late October 2023. It therefore captures the cases and issues that will be addressed in opinions issued by the Utah Supreme Court in 2024 and into 2025.

The article does not, however, highlight every case and issue pending on the Utah Supreme Court's docket. But that information is important. For those interested in accessing it, a list of all matters pending in the Utah Supreme Court as of late October 2023 is provided at https://rqn.com/appellate-practice/utsupct-open-cases. (Judicial and attorney discipline proceedings are not included.) The cases are identified by title, case number, and subject matter (e.g., civil, criminal, capital felony, and etc.).

There are also links provided to at least one substantive document filed in each case. Accordingly, the petition, retention request, briefing, and/or other substantive document(s) filed in each case, including briefing in League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature and State v. Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, may be found at the above-noted address. A review of those documents will provide insight into the issues and arguments that have been or are likely to be raised in each proceeding.

This information may also be accessed via the following QR code:

CAROL FUNK is an experienced appellate attorney and chair of Ray Quinney &Nebeker's Appellate Practice. She also serves on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Utah Supreme Court 2024: Specific Issues

Following are summaries of many of the significant cases and issues currently on the Utah Supreme Court's docket, as well as information regarding the status of each case.

Administrative Proceedings Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Property Taxes.

Larry H. Miller Theaters, Inc. v. Utah State Tax Commission, No. 20220345, on Review of Administrative Decision.

The Utah Supreme Court retained jurisdiction over this proceeding in which Larry H. Miller Theaters, Inc., along with several other entities, challenges the Utah State Tax Commission's construction of Utah Code Section 59-2-1004.6.

Section 1004.6 addresses tax relief for a decrease in fair market value due to access interruption. Petitioners claim the COVID-19 pandemic created access interruption to their properties. The Tax Commission disagrees, construing access interruption to include only situations in which physical access to taxpayer property is impeded. Petitioners urge the Utah Supreme Court to hold the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in access interruption to their properties for purposes of section 1004.6.

Oral argument was held in September 2023. At the time this article was submitted for publication, no decision had yet been issued. of Utah would have understood it to incorporate the concept of substantially related business activity.

The briefing is likely to be completed in early 2024.

Civil Proceedings

Lawmaking by Initiative and the Justiciability (or NonJusticiability) of Partisan Gerrymandering.

League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, No. 20220991, on Interlocutory Appeal.

The Utah Supreme Court granted a request by the Utah Legislature and other defendants to appeal from an order largely denying their motion to dismiss. The defendants had moved to dismiss claims relating to Senate Bill 200. The Utah Legislature promptly passed SB 200 after Utah voters approved Proposition 4, which provided for an independent redistricting commission with the purpose of limiting partisan gerrymandering.

A mix of organizational and individual plaintiffs filed suit against the Utah Legislature and others, alleging enactment of SB 200 and subsequent partisan gerrymandering violated their constitutional rights. Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting the claims present nonjusticiable political questions and, in the alternative, partisan gerrymandering does not violate the Utah Constitution. The district court concluded the claims were justiciable and declined to dismiss claims based on the Free Elections Clause, Equal Protection Clause, Free Speech and Association Clause, and the Right to Vote Clause. The district court did, however, dismiss claims based on the Inherent Political Powers and Initiative Clauses.

Meaning of the Utah Constitution's Exclusive Charitable Use Property Tax Exemption.

Sports Medicine Research &Testing Laboratory v. Utah State Tax Commission, No. 20220786, on Review of Administrative Decision.

The Utah Supreme Court retained jurisdiction over this proceeding, which centers on the exclusive charitable use property tax exemption in the Utah Constitution. Under Article XIII, Section 3, property is not taxable if owned by a nonprofit entity and used exclusively for charitable purposes.

In prior cases, the Utah Supreme Court has waffled a bit on what exclusive charitable use means. Sports Medicine Research &Testing Laboratory (SMRTL) has asked the Utah Supreme Court to clarify its murky case law and to conclude SMRTL qualifies for the exemption. As part of that clarification, SMRTL requests that the Utah Supreme Court recognize the federal tax concept of substantially related business activity as a guiding principle in the state constitutional analysis.

SMRTL has also asked that, if necessary, the Utah Supreme Court reconsider its case law and engage in an original public meaning analysis of the exclusive charitable use provision. SMRTL claims that when the provision was enacted, the people

The Utah Supreme Court called for supplemental briefing to aid its consideration of the issues. The court asked the parties to address questions that will arise if the court concludes the constitutional right of the people of Utah to alter or reform their government is a fundamental right and the people of Utah exercised that right when they approved Proposition 4. The request for supplemental briefing focused on what type of scrutiny, if any, might apply when assessing whether that constitutional right has been violated.

Oral argument was held in July 2023. At the time this article was submitted for publication, no decision had yet been issued.

Legality of the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act's Statute of Repose and the Meaning of the Open Courts Clause. Bingham v. Gourley, No. 20230436, on Direct Appeal.

The Utah Supreme Court agreed to retain jurisdiction over this appeal, which challenges the constitutionality of the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act's four-year statute of repose. Bingham asserts the statute of repose violates the Utah Constitution's Open Courts and Uniform Operation of Law Clauses, as well as the federal constitution's Equal Protection Clause.

At the time this article was submitted for publication, Gourley had not yet filed their opposing brief. It is therefore unclear whether they will ask the Utah Supreme Court to reconsider its construction of...