In Utah, a contentious battle over judicial power and women’s influence in the state’s court system has escalated into a broader political struggle involving redistricting, abortion rights, and the balance of authority between elected officials and the judiciary. The conflict, which began in the wake of a 2018 ballot measure, has exposed deep divisions within the state’s political and legal institutions, highlighting tensions over gender and governance in a state dominated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Republican supermajority.
The dispute traces back to a voter-approved initiative that created an independent commission to redraw congressional districts, aiming to prevent gerrymandering and promote fair representation. When the Legislature repealed the measure before it could take effect and enacted a new map that critics said diluted Democratic strength in Salt Lake County, a group called Mormon Women for Ethical Government, along with the League of Women Voters, filed a lawsuit challenging the Legislature’s actions.
Utah’s Supreme Court, which gained its first female majority by 2024, unanimously sided with the women, ruling that the people have the constitutional right to reform their government and strike down partisan gerrymandering. This decision, along with a ruling blocking the Legislature’s abortion ban on grounds of gender equality, prompted a strong response from Republican leaders who control state government.
In the past year, the Legislature expanded the Supreme Court from five to seven justices, appointing men to the new seats, and established a separate “constitutional court” designed to hear cases against the Legislature, including those on redistricting and abortion. These moves were justified by lawmakers as efforts to correct judicial overreach, but critics argue they amount to court-packing and an attempt to undermine judicial independence.
Governor Spencer Cox, who has promoted civility and bipartisanship in national forums, has played a central role in these developments. He eliminated a requirement for partisan balance on the judicial nominating commission, centralizing appointment power, and defended the appointments of men over women by citing a lack of qualified female applicants. Cox has rejected accusations of misogyny, calling such narratives “insane.”
The controversy intensified after two female justices, including Diana Hagen, faced retention challenges backed by the Republican Party. Justice Hagen resigned after an accusation of misconduct—deemed not credible by judicial investigators—was used as political leverage. She expressed concern over the damage to the court’s integrity and acknowledged the gender dynamics at play, noting the absence of similar campaigns against male justices.
Supporters of the women’s groups and impartial judiciary argue that Utah’s political leadership has reacted aggressively to legal setbacks by reshaping the courts to favor their interests. Legal experts and advocates have criticized the Legislature for appointing judges to hear cases involving itself, warning of erosion in public trust. State Senator Todd Weiler, a key supporter of the court changes, acknowledged some political motivation but emphasized that all justices were Republican appointees.
The next chapter in this evolving conflict centers on pending Supreme Court cases challenging the constitutional court’s legality. The Legislature has prepared contingency measures that would allow even greater control over judicial proceedings involving the state, setting the stage for ongoing legal and political battles over the separation of powers and the role of women in Utah’s governance.