Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute over a proposed constitutional amendment in Utah, referred to as Amendment D. The amendment, proposed by the Utah State Legislature, seeks to change the state constitution in three significant ways: specifying that the right to alter or reform the government can only be exercised through constitutional processes, banning foreign influence in the initiative and referendum processes, and granting the Legislature unlimited power to amend or repeal any law passed by a citizen initiative. The controversy centers on whether the amendment was properly submitted to voters and whether it was published as required by the Utah Constitution.The Third Judicial District Court in Salt Lake County reviewed the case and found that the Legislature had not complied with the constitutional requirements for submitting and publishing the proposed amendment. The court ruled that the ballot title for Amendment D was misleading and did not accurately reflect the substance of the amendment, thus failing to meet the Submission Clause of the Utah Constitution. Additionally, the court found that the Legislature did not cause the amendment to be published in newspapers across the state for two months preceding the election, as required by the Publication Clause. Consequently, the district court issued a preliminary injunction declaring Amendment D void and ordered that any votes cast on the amendment not be counted.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the district court's decision and affirmed the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court agreed that the ballot title was misleading and did not provide voters with a clear understanding of what they were voting for or against, thus violating the Submission Clause. The Court also held that the Legislature failed to comply with the Publication Clause by not ensuring continuous publication of the amendment's text in newspapers for the required two-month period. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the balance of harms and the public interest favored issuing the preliminary injunction. As a result, Amendment D was declared void, and any votes cast on it will have no effect. View "League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature" on Justia Law

In this case, Tiffany Bingham challenged the constitutionality of the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act’s four-year statute of repose after her medical malpractice claim against Dr. George C. Gourley and Dr. McKay L. Platt was dismissed. Bingham underwent surgeries in 2010, experienced complications, and discovered in 2017 that the surgeries had caused damage, leading to the removal of her kidney. She filed her lawsuit in 2020, more than four years after the alleged malpractice, prompting the dismissal of her claim under the statute of repose.The Fourth District Court in Provo dismissed Bingham’s complaint, concluding that the statute of repose was constitutional. The court found that the statute did not violate the Open Courts Clause, the Uniform Operation of Laws Provision, or the Equal Protection Clause. The court reasoned that the statute was a non-arbitrary means of addressing the social and economic issues related to rising medical malpractice insurance costs and was reasonably necessary to achieve the legislative goal of stabilizing insurance premiums.The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that Bingham failed to demonstrate that the statute of repose violated the Open Courts Clause, as the legislature’s findings of a health care crisis were fairly debatable and the statute was a reasonable means to address that crisis. The court also found that the statute did not violate the Uniform Operation of Laws Provision, as it was reasonably necessary to achieve the legislative goals and actually and substantially furthered those goals. Finally, the court concluded that the statute did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as it was rationally related to a legitimate public purpose and did not impair a fundamental right. View "Bingham v. Gourley" on Justia Law

Colby Jenkins contested the results of the 2024 primary election for the Utah Republican Party candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Utah’s Second Congressional District. After a recount, election officials determined that Celeste Maloy had won by a narrow margin. Jenkins challenged the rejection of certain ballots that were deemed untimely because they were not postmarked by the deadline specified in Utah’s election code. He argued that these ballots were mailed before election day but were delayed in receiving a postmark due to variations in U.S. Postal Service practices.The Lieutenant Governor questioned whether Jenkins had the standing to assert constitutional arguments on behalf of the voters whose ballots were not counted. However, the court did not need to decide on this issue because Jenkins failed to establish that he was entitled to the relief he sought. Jenkins argued that the statutory postmark requirement resulted in unequal treatment of voters and interfered with the fundamental right to vote. However, he did not adequately brief these constitutional arguments, failing to cite relevant case law or provide sufficient analysis.The Utah Supreme Court denied Jenkins’s petition for extraordinary relief. The court held that Jenkins did not meet his burden of demonstrating a constitutional violation. Specifically, Jenkins did not show that election officials failed to comply with any statutory mandate, nor did he provide adequate legal support for his claims that the postmark requirement was unconstitutional. The court concluded that voters could ensure their ballots were timely postmarked by mailing them well in advance or by taking them directly to the post office. Therefore, the petition was denied. View "Jenkins v. Beaver County" on Justia Law

**Summary:**The case involves the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah (PPAU) challenging Senate Bill 174 (SB 174), a law enacted by the Utah Legislature that prohibits abortion at any stage of pregnancy except in three specific circumstances. PPAU argues that SB 174 violates several rights guaranteed by the Utah Constitution and sought a preliminary injunction to halt the law's enforcement while its constitutionality was litigated. The district court granted the preliminary injunction after an evidentiary hearing.The State of Utah petitioned for interlocutory review, presenting two primary arguments: that PPAU lacks standing to challenge the law and that the district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. The State argued that PPAU did not have a personal stake in the dispute and that the district court erred in its application of the preliminary injunction standard.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that PPAU has standing to challenge SB 174, satisfying both traditional and third-party standing requirements. The court found that PPAU demonstrated a distinct and palpable injury, including the threat of criminal prosecution and economic harm, which would be redressed by enjoining the law. The court also concluded that PPAU could assert the rights of its patients due to the close relationship between PPAU and its patients and the genuine obstacles patients face in asserting their own rights.The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. The court determined that PPAU raised serious issues concerning the constitutionality of SB 174, which should be the subject of further litigation. The district court acted within its discretion in concluding that PPAU would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, that the balance of harms favored an injunction, and that an injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. The preliminary injunction remains in place while PPAU litigates its claims. View "Planned Parenthood Association v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the Utah Legislature's repeal and replacement of a citizen initiative known as "Proposition 4," which aimed to reform the state's redistricting process to prevent partisan gerrymandering. Proposition 4, passed by Utah voters in 2018, established an Independent Redistricting Commission and set forth neutral redistricting standards, including a prohibition on partisan gerrymandering. However, before the next redistricting cycle, the Utah Legislature enacted Senate Bill 200 (S.B. 200), which repealed Proposition 4 and replaced it with a new law that did not include the same anti-gerrymandering provisions and weakened the role of the Independent Commission.In the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, the plaintiffs argued that the Legislature's actions violated the Utah Constitution by nullifying the reforms enacted by the people through Proposition 4. The district court dismissed this claim, holding that the Legislature has the authority to amend or repeal any statute, including those enacted by citizen initiative, without limitation. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on two constitutional provisions: the Initiative Provision in article VI, section 1, which grants the people the power to initiate legislation, and the Alter or Reform Clause in article I, section 2, which states that the people have the right to alter or reform their government. The court concluded that these provisions, when read together, limit the Legislature's power to amend or repeal a citizen initiative that reforms the government. The court held that the people’s right to reform the government through an initiative is constitutionally protected from legislative actions that would impair the reform enacted by the people.The Utah Supreme Court reversed the district court's dismissal of Count V, which challenged the Legislature's repeal and replacement of Proposition 4, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court emphasized that legislative changes to a government-reform initiative must not impair the reform and must be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest if they do. View "League of Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature" on Justia Law

A group of Utah voters, led by Ian Daniel Phillips, sought to initiate state legislation that would impose an age limit on Utah candidates for federal office. The Lieutenant Governor of Utah rejected the group's initiative application, concluding that the proposed law was "patently unconstitutional" under U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, a Supreme Court case that forbids states from enacting laws imposing qualifications on candidates for federal congressional office. The group then sued the Lieutenant Governor, seeking a declaration that the initiative is not patently unconstitutional and could become law if enacted.The district court dismissed the group's complaint, ruling that the proposed initiative is "squarely foreclosed by" Thornton, a decision that the court had no authority to overrule. The group appealed, maintaining that Thornton should be overruled because its prohibition on state-created qualifications for federal officeholders violates the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, they acknowledged that the Supreme Court of the State of Utah lacks authority to overturn Thornton and asked the court to affirm the district court’s decision, thereby paving the way for them to petition the United States Supreme Court for review.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the district court's ruling. The court held that the group had appellate standing, despite their concession that they cannot prevail at this stage of the appeal. The court also agreed with the district court that the proposed law is patently unconstitutional under Thornton. Therefore, the group did not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. View "Phillips v. Henderson" on Justia Law

The case involves Salt Lake County's challenge to the constitutionality of the Aircraft Valuation Law, which provides a preferred method for determining the fair market value of aircraft for tax purposes. The County argued that the application of the law to Delta Air Lines' aircraft resulted in an assessment below fair market value, violating the Utah Constitution. The County also contended that the law, on its face, violated the Utah Constitution by divesting the Utah State Tax Commission of its power to assess airline property.The Utah State Tax Commission had previously upheld the 2017 assessment of Delta's property, which was calculated according to the Aircraft Valuation Law. The Commission found that the County did not provide clear and convincing evidence that the legislature's preferred method of valuation did not reasonably reflect fair market value.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah rejected the County's arguments. The court held that the County failed to fully utilize the statutory safety valve, which allows the Commission to use an alternative valuation method if the preferred method does not reasonably reflect fair market value. The court also rejected the County's facial challenge to the Aircraft Valuation Law, concluding that the County did not show that the law prohibits the legislature from prescribing a preferred method for valuing aircraft. Therefore, the court affirmed the Commission's decision. View "Salt Lake Co v. Tax Commission" on Justia Law

In this appeal of a criminal case, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah concluded that the police officers' warrantless entry and search of Alexander Hung Tran’s home were reasonable and justified under the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court also declined to recognize broader protection under the Utah Constitution in the emergency aid context. The case arose when Tran appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence that police officers obtained during a warrantless entry and search of his home. The officers had entered Tran's home due to their belief that two individuals inside were in need of immediate aid, which was supported by a range of factors. The court held that the totality of the circumstances known to the police officers at the time they entered Tran’s home supported an objectively reasonable basis to believe that the two individuals were in need of immediate aid, thus falling within the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. View "State v. Tran" on Justia Law

In the case at hand, Robert Evan Woodham was convicted for failing to yield to stationary emergency vehicles in violation of Utah Code subsection 41-6a-904(2). The conviction was upheld by the district court, after which Woodham appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals. However, the appellate court dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction, citing that the district court did not rule on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance, which is a requirement for appellate review under Utah Code § 78A-7-118(11). Woodham then petitioned the Supreme Court of Utah, arguing the district court implicitly ruled on his constitutional argument.The Supreme Court of Utah clarified that an implicit ruling by the district court on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance is sufficient to permit appellate review under Utah Code subsection 78A-7-118(11), overruling a contrary holding by the Utah Court of Appeals in Murray City v. Timmerman. However, the Court agreed with the appellate court's decision in Woodham's case, stating that he did not preserve a constitutional challenge to the emergency vehicle statute, and therefore, the district court did not implicitly rule on its constitutionality. Consequently, the dismissal of Woodham's appeal due to lack of jurisdiction was affirmed. View "Park City v. Woodham" on Justia Law

In a case before the Supreme Court of the State of Utah, the petitioner, Elbert John Paule, was charged with murder, obstruction of justice, reckless endangerment, and assault following a fatal shooting incident involving a friend. The jury acquitted Paule on all charges except obstruction of justice. Paule challenged his conviction, arguing that the obstruction of justice conviction was legally inconsistent with the jury’s determination that he was not guilty of the other crimes. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. On certiorari review, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the lower court's ruling.The Supreme Court held that to be convicted of obstruction of justice, a defendant need only perform an obstructive act with the requisite intent. Proof of a separate crime is not necessary. The court concluded that because a violation of Utah’s obstruction of justice statute requires only that a defendant act with the requisite intent—it does not require proof of a separate criminal offense—the jury’s verdict was not legally impossible. Furthermore, the court found that Paule's counsel was not constitutionally ineffective in failing to seek a more detailed unanimity instruction. View "State v. Paule" on Justia Law