SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Supreme Court has rejected a last-ditch effort by the state Legislature to halt the implementation of a new congressional map, a decision that ensures a more competitive political landscape for the upcoming midterm elections. The ruling, delivered on , effectively closes a chapter in a protracted legal battle over redistricting, though a separate federal lawsuit remains pending.
The dispute centers on a map drawn by a district court judge after lawmakers overturned a voter-approved initiative designed to prevent partisan gerrymandering. The Legislature had appealed the August 2025 ruling that invalidated the 2021 congressional map, seeking to block a remedial map that creates a Democratic-leaning district in Salt Lake County. However, a three-justice panel – comprised of Chief Justice Matthew Durrant, Justice Paige Petersen, and Associate Chief Justice Jill Pohlman – dismissed the appeal, citing a lack of proper jurisdiction.
According to the court’s ruling, state code mandates a 30-day window for appealing the initial August 25, 2025, decision. Instead of filing a direct appeal within that timeframe, the Legislature requested the district court to stay its injunction blocking the 2021 map. That motion was denied. Subsequently, lawmakers did not appeal a November ruling by 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson, which adopted the remedial map currently in place. They then sought to have the August ruling certified by the district court in December to facilitate an appeal, a request granted in part but not fully, as some claims in the ongoing case remained unresolved.
“Rule 54(b) does not allow for immediate review of an order where that order does not finally resolve plaintiffs’ claim,” the justices wrote in their decision. “And here, no claim has been certified as final. Certification under rule 54(b) is improper and we lack jurisdiction over legislative defendants’ appeal.” The court acknowledged the “important legal issues” raised by the case, suggesting that had lawmakers appealed either the November or December rulings within the 30-day window, the Supreme Court would have had jurisdiction.
This legal battle stems from a 2018 voter initiative, Proposition 4, which aimed to curb partisan gerrymandering. However, in 2022, the Legislature overturned Proposition 4 and enacted a new law governing redistricting. The Utah Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that lawmakers had overreached in replacing the voter-approved initiative. Judge Gibson subsequently threw out the map drawn by the Legislature and later adopted a remedial map for the 2026 midterm elections.
The ruling has drawn sharp reactions from both sides of the political spectrum. Senate President Stuart Adams, a Republican from Layton, expressed frustration with the court’s decision, stating, “Neither the Utah Constitution nor the U.S. Constitution empowers courts to impose a map that elected representatives did not enact.” He added that the decision would continue to create “chaos,” but vowed to continue defending “a process that respects the Constitution and ensures Utah voters across our state have their voices respected.”
However, advocates for fair representation welcomed the decision. Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, emphasized the importance of fair representation for Utah voters. “Utah voters deserve fair representation and clarity heading into our elections,” she said in a statement. “We are encouraged that the court dismissed this improper appeal and allowed the process to move forward without disruption to voters or election administrators. The League of Women Voters of Utah will continue in our fight for fair maps for Utahns. Enough is enough!”
The Utah Democratic Party hailed the ruling as “a resounding victory for voters and fair elections,” asserting that Proposition 4 was intended to end partisan gerrymandering and restore power to the people. The party stated on social media that the courts had made it clear that lawmakers cannot disregard the law to protect their political interests.
While the state court battle appears to be nearing its conclusion, a federal lawsuit challenging the new congressional map remains ongoing. This separate legal challenge adds another layer of complexity to the redistricting process and could potentially lead to further adjustments before the elections. The outcome of this federal case will be closely watched, as it could have significant implications for the balance of power in Utah’s congressional delegation.
Chief Justice Matthew Durrant was appointed to the Utah Supreme Court in January 2000 by Governor Michael O. Leavitt, having previously served as a trial judge in the Third Judicial District. He has held various leadership positions within the court system, including Associate Chief Justice and chair of the Supreme Court’s Professionalism Committee.
