Utah Governor Spencer Cox enacted a bill on Saturday that increases the membership of the state Supreme Court from five to seven justices. This legislative change arises amid mounting dissatisfaction among Republican legislators following several losses in court rulings. Backers of the expansion contend it will improve the court's operational efficiency, though legal authorities caution it could have the reverse effect and set a precarious precedent during a period of heightened tension between the legislative and judicial branches.
The judiciary had not requested this enlargement of the high court, and Democrats unanimously opposed the measure, citing suspicious timing. Last week, the Utah Legislature petitioned the court to overturn a redistricting decision that enhanced Democrats' prospects of winning one of Utah's four congressional seats currently held by Republicans this fall. With the addition of new justices, the scheduled ruling on the congressional map may occur under an expanded bench.
Because the bill was approved by more than two-thirds of the legislative body, it came into effect immediately after the governor's signature, allowing for the prompt addition of justices without the usual several months' waiting window.
In Utah, judicial appointments to the state Supreme Court are made by the governor and require confirmation by the state Senate. Unlike some states that elect their Supreme Court justices, Utah's system relies on appointments. While most states maintain a Supreme Court of either five or seven justices, only a few have nine members. Governor Cox, a Republican, argues that increasing the court's size aligns Utah with similarly populated states and denies political motivations, noting previous appointments were made predominantly by Republican governors and senators.
Following the implementation of this change, Governor Cox will have appointed five of the seven justices seated on the court. Additionally, last month, Republican lawmakers transferred the authority to select the court's chief justice from the justices themselves to the governor. Representative Casey Snider, a Republican and sponsor of the bill, stated that having seven perspectives rather than five on complex state issues will be beneficial.
However, some experienced judicial figures express skepticism about the efficiency rationale. John Pearce, former associate chief justice who recently retired, expressed doubt that increasing the number of justices will expedite court proceedings. He suggested that more viewpoints may prolong the decision-making process, contrary to the legislature's apparent intent.
Utah's experience mirrors that of Arizona and Georgia, which expanded their courts in recent years citing efficiency. However, reports from former and current justices in Arizona indicate that immediately following the expansion, the larger bench slowed opinion issuance due to the higher volume of reviewers. Presently, Arizona's court produces moderately more rulings annually than before the expansion, whereas Georgia's rulings have decreased slightly.
Utah Chief Justice Matthew Durrant conveyed to legislators at the start of the 2026 session that the Supreme Court has virtually no caseload backlog and recommended that resources be allocated to lower courts, which face greater demand. In response, bill sponsors incorporated additional judge and clerk positions for lower courts into the legislation.
The Utah State Bar has raised concerns regarding this expansion and other legislative proposals perceived as eroding judicial independence. Among these is a bill to establish a new trial court with exclusive purview over constitutional challenges, potentially reducing other courts' capacity to issue injunctions against unconstitutional state laws.
Moreover, Republican organizers are gathering signatures for a November ballot initiative aiming to reinstate their authority to draw voting districts favoring their party, a practice commonly referred to as gerrymandering.