Utah lawmakers are openly discussing a plan to expand the Utah Supreme Court from five justices to seven, a move that could take place as early as the opening days of the 2026 legislative session. While supporters frame the proposal as a routine modernization aligned with other states of similar size, critics are already questioning the timing — and the political implications — of the potential expansion.
Proposal Could Move Quickly
State Senator Todd Weiler, a Republican and prominent voice in Utah politics, suggested this week that the expansion could be approved almost immediately once lawmakers convene.
“Like most states of our size, we’re going to go up to seven, and that will probably happen in the first week of the session,” Weiler said during a recent episode of his podcast, Political as Heck, according to ABC 4.
Weiler’s remarks indicate that legislative groundwork for the change may already be in place, particularly since funding for two additional justices has reportedly been included in Governor Spencer Cox’s proposed budget.
If approved, the expansion would represent one of the most significant structural changes to Utah’s judiciary in decades.
Context: Redistricting Ruling Sparked Debate
The discussion surrounding court expansion did not arise in a vacuum. It follows a contentious legal battle over Utah’s congressional redistricting maps and a November ruling by Judge Dianna Gibson that invalidated the legislature’s redrawn districts.
Gibson ruled that lawmakers failed to comply with Proposition 4, a voter-approved anti-gerrymandering initiative that established an independent redistricting commission. The court concluded that the legislature improperly overrode the intent of the ballot measure when it intervened in the redistricting process after judicial involvement.
As part of her ruling, Gibson directed the lieutenant governor to address district boundaries that cut through individual homes and apartment buildings — a situation that had created confusion and legal concerns for affected residents.
Lawmakers Push Back on Judicial Authority
Senator Weiler has been outspoken in his criticism of the ruling, arguing that it effectively stripped the legislature of authority that should remain with elected officials.
According to Weiler, had lawmakers been allowed to finalize the maps themselves without judicial interference, the legislature would have retained control over how boundary issues were resolved.
“The ruling took a small amount of power away from lawmakers,” Weiler said during the podcast discussion.
That sentiment reflects a broader frustration among some Republican legislators who believe the judiciary has increasingly inserted itself into what they view as legislative prerogatives — particularly on issues like redistricting, election law, and ballot initiatives.
Supreme Court Appeal Likely
Attorney Corey Astill, Weiler’s podcast co-host, expressed hope that the Utah Supreme Court would take up an appeal of Judge Gibson’s ruling. That prospect adds another layer of political tension to the conversation about expanding the court.
Weiler noted that if the appeal reaches the Supreme Court, it may do so after the court has already been expanded.
“It may very well be that the Supreme Court has two new members by the time the court takes this up because the governor has funded in his budget two additional members,” Weiler said.
While no direct link has been established between the redistricting case and the proposed expansion, the timing has fueled speculation about whether lawmakers are seeking to influence the court’s ideological balance.
Supporters Say Expansion Is Long Overdue
Proponents of the expansion argue that Utah’s Supreme Court is simply undersized compared to courts in states with similar populations and caseloads.
Utah currently has more than 3.4 million residents, yet its high court consists of only five justices — fewer than many peer states. Supporters say adding two justices would:
- Reduce the court’s workload
- Allow for faster resolution of cases
- Increase the diversity of legal perspectives
- Improve administrative efficiency
From this perspective, the proposal is portrayed not as a political maneuver but as a practical response to population growth and increasing legal complexity.
Critics Raise Concerns About Motive
Opponents, however, warn that expanding the court in close proximity to controversial rulings risks undermining public confidence in judicial independence.
They argue that even if the expansion is technically lawful, the optics resemble “court packing” — a term often associated with efforts