SALT LAKE CITY — A legislative committee on Wednesday gave its approval to a resolution that would make it easier to challenge the hold placed on Utah's trigger abortion ban.

Rep. Brady Brammer, R-Pleasant Grove, said his resolution isn't based just on the preliminary injunction against Utah's abortion ban, but opponents of the resolution said that it is clearly meant to target Planned Parenthood's lawsuit against that law, and could have broad consequences for other court cases.

HJR2 would prevent judges from halting laws on the basis that they present "serious issues on the merits," which is the standard Judge Andrew Stone used to justify blocking Utah's trigger law from going into effect while the case is argued. The resolution would only allow such injunctions when there is a "substantial likelihood" of success in court.

Brammer said HJR2 "front-loads" the questions of whether a law is constitutional or not, asking that judges make a decision on the merits of the case before blocking laws.

While Brammer said the resolution would prevent unnecessary injunctions against future legislation, several of his fellow lawmakers were concerned by the resolution's retroactive clause, which is what would apply to the abortion ban, but potentially impact other cases that are currently making their way through the courts.

All of the public commenters were also opposed to the resolution, and many specifically asked that lawmakers remove the retroactive clause.

ACLU of Utah legal director John Mejia cautioned that the resolution could give people and businesses fewer options to protect their legal rights, and could impact eminent domain and land annexation cases.

Related:

Senate president calls Utah's abortion ban constitutional, asks that it take effect

Utah Senate President J. Stuart Adams insists Utah's abortion law is constitutional and should be allowed to take effect even as the Utah Supreme Court is considering it.

Mark Brinton, general counsel for the Utah Medical Association, said the resolution applies broadly to cases involving preliminary injunctions, and "has significant potential to change how the law works for people."

Passing it, he said, "has the potential for taking away rights that may be critical to (people's) business or circumstances."

Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, offered an amendment to limit the resolution to future cases, saying we "shouldn't interfere in the process of the courts." He added that the total number of applicable cases is unknown, and could incur costs for the state as well as plaintiffs.

"I'd have a lot less heartburn and concern about making the changes prospectively as opposed to (retroactively)," he said.

King's amendment failed, and the resolution ultimately passed with both Democrats and two Republicans in opposition. It now goes to the House floor and will ultimately need to pass both chambers of the Legislature by a two-thirds majority vote to go into effect.

Ultimately, "there will be very, very little that will change," if this passes, Brammer told the committee. "I understand the consternation with regards to retroactivity. ... The judge will simply have to give the reasons as to why the case is substantially likely to prevail on the merits."

Correction: An earlier version said HJR2 passed along party lines. Two Republicans — Reps. Christine Watkins and Judy Weeks Rohner — joined both Democrats on the committee in voting against the resolution.

Related topics