GOP Views on Supreme Court Expansion Shift With Political Gain
Written by Black Hot Fire Network Team on February 4, 2026
Republican lawmakers in Utah and Wyoming are considering changes to the size of their state supreme courts, mirroring a similar effort in Arizona. These actions come after rulings from the courts frustrated the Republican-controlled legislatures.
Utah Supreme Court Expansion
The Utah state supreme court has issued rulings that the Republican-controlled legislature disagreed with, including upholding orders blocking a near-total abortion ban and requiring the legislature to redraw congressional districts based on a voter-approved initiative. Following the abortion ban decision, legislative leaders accused the court of undermining the legislature’s authority.
In response, Utah Republicans introduced a bill, supported by Governor Spencer Cox, to expand the court from five to seven justices. Cox subsequently signed the bill into law, allowing him to appoint two new justices. While Cox defended the expansion as a way to expedite court proceedings, Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and Justice Paige Peterson have stated the move appears to be retribution for unfavorable rulings.
Wyoming Supreme Court Considerations
Wyoming Republicans are exploring a different approach: reducing the size of their supreme court. After the court struck down the state’s abortion ban in January, a House Appropriations Committee held a private session to discuss potential actions related to the judiciary, including a proposal to reduce the court’s size from five to three justices. Although the committee did not proceed with the proposal, it highlights the willingness of Republicans to consider structural changes to the judiciary.
Arizona Precedent
The efforts in Utah and Wyoming follow a model established in Arizona a decade ago. After years of tension between the legislature and the state supreme court, then-Governor Doug Ducey expanded the court from five to seven justices, allowing him to appoint justices aligned with Republican views. These appointments led to a court more deferential to the legislature and more resistant to voter-initiated efforts. The Arizona Supreme Court also upheld a business’s request for an exemption from a local anti-discrimination ordinance, similar to the 303 Creative case.
