Utah Supreme Court rejects emergency stay in redistricting case, Utah legislature must draw new maps

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — The Utah Supreme Court has rejected an emergency request from the Utah legislature to stay the lower court ruling that asks lawmakers to draw new congressional maps by September 25.

That means that unless another stay is granted, presumably by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Utah Legislature will need to draw new congressional maps by September 25.

“Given the considerable discretion afforded to the District Court to grant a stay of its own injunctive order, we are in no position to grant extraordinary relief (to the legislature) on the basis that the discretion was abused where they have not identified an error related to the District Court’s order denying their stay request,” the Court wrote.

In short, the Court is saying that the Legislature’s lawyers didn’t appeal to the arguments of why the lower court judge denied the original stay.

The Legislature argued to the lower court that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable harm, but Third District Judge Dianna Gibson ruled that it is possible for the case and any appeals to the Utah Supreme Court to be resolved without impacting the 2026 midterm elections. She also argued that granting a stay is what would cause irreparable harm to the people of Utah.

To get to this point, Judge Gibson first determined that the legislature violated Utahns’ rights to “alter and reform” their government by overturning the 2018 citizen-created anti-gerrymandering commission and its criteria known as Proposition 4.

Gibson’s fix, after it was softened, was to direct, not require, the legislature to have new maps made public by September 25, with an evidentiary hearing for late October to determine whether lawmakers followed Prop 4’s criteria. She also ruled that the court would choose a legal map in time for the 2026 midterm elections if the legislature’s map was not.

The High Court said that the Legislature did properly show that there was no other way they could seek relief, but they denied the petition because they did not show an entitlement to be granted that relief.

“Thus, they have not shown that the District Court abused its discretion in denying their request,” the High Court ruled.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is included in its entirety below.