A bill seeking to expand Utah’s judiciary, both in the lower courts and up to the Supreme Court, was introduced with heavy discussion and debate in a state Senate committee on Thursday. The initiative, led by GOP lawmakers, aims to help the court system manage its growing caseload.
The bill, SB134, advanced with a 9-to-1 vote, with Sen. Stephanie Pitcher, D-Millcreek, casting the sole dissenting vote. It proposes adding more judges to the state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Additionally, amendments to the bill would add one district court judge each in Salt Lake City, St. George, and Provo.
Currently, the Utah Supreme Court consists of five justices, while the Court of Appeals has seven judges. Sen. Chris Wilson, R-Logan, the bill’s chief sponsor, is proposing to increase the highest court to seven justices and the appellate court to nine judges.
Wilson noted, “In 1896, when Utah became a state, we had 276,000 people and a Supreme Court of three justices. That was expanded to five justices in 1917 when the population was roughly 444,000.” He added, “In 1987, we created the Court of Appeals with seven judges when the state had a population of 1.7 million. Since that time, our population has doubled to 3.5 million.” Utah is now the 30th largest state in the country.
Wilson also pointed out that “there are roughly 35 states with either seven or nine justices. Of those, 10 of the closest states in population to Utah have somewhere between seven and nine justices on their Supreme Courts.” His argument centers on the fact that a growing population naturally leads to a growing judicial caseload.
If the bill passes the Legislature and is signed by Governor Spencer Cox—as expected, since he suggested the idea last month—it would mark the first time since 2016 that a state has increased the number of judges on its Supreme Court bench.
However, not everyone supports the expansion. Sen. Stephanie Pitcher previously told the Deseret News that she views the Supreme Court expansion as politically motivated rather than a response to caseload concerns. She stated, “It has everything to do with the fact that my colleagues are getting rulings they’re not happy with.”
Recent contentious issues, such as abortion and the state’s most recent redistricting dispute, have heightened tensions between the legislature and judiciary.
Most public comments during Thursday’s hearing expressed little concern about adding judges to the lower courts; opposition primarily focused on increasing the number of Supreme Court justices. Law professors, attorneys, and concerned citizens criticized the proposed increase as an attempt by GOP leadership to engage in court-packing—a legislative-driven change versus a voter-initiated change.
Opponents also argued that the legislature should prioritize addressing judicial needs only as identified by the judiciary itself.
Earlier this week, during his State of the Judiciary address, Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant made it clear that adding more justices to the Supreme Court was not the court’s preference. Regarding caseload concerns, Durrant noted that in 2025, the state’s Supreme Court finally cleared the backlog caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and its caseload is now considered normal.
“Disagreement is inherent in our system of government. Public disparagement of another branch is not,” Durrant told the Legislature. “While polarized ‘us versus them’ rhetoric has become common in national circles, it is not and should not be the norm here.”
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2026/01/22/utah-bill-seeks-supreme-court-lower-court-expansion-public-dissent/