Utah Supreme Court
Can a judge be removed for violating criminal law while in office? In Re Inquiry of a Judge, Hon. Walter K. Steed Explained
Summary
Judge Walter K. Steed served as a justice court judge in Hildale, Utah while maintaining plural marriages with three wives, which violated Utah’s bigamy statute. The Judicial Conduct Commission recommended his removal for violating canon 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to respect and comply with the law.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Judge Walter K. Steed served as a justice court judge in Hildale, Utah from 1980 while maintaining plural marriages with three wives. At his appointment, he had one legal wife and one religious wife, with a third wife added in 1985 through religious ceremony. Throughout his tenure, Judge Steed took the prescribed oath of office, pledging to obey and defend the Utah constitution, while openly violating Utah Code section 76-7-101, the bigamy statute.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether Judge Steed’s admitted violation of the bigamy statute constituted grounds for removal under canon 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to respect and comply with the law. The Utah Judicial Conduct Commission concluded that his behavior was conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brought the judicial office into disrepute.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s recommendation for removal. The court emphasized that judges are expected to abide by all applicable laws, and that civil disobedience carries consequences for judges that may not apply to other citizens. The court noted that “the dignity and respect accorded the judiciary is a necessary element of the rule of law,” and when judges violate or ignore the law, “the stability of our society is placed at undue risk.”
Practice Implications
This case establishes that judicial officers must maintain strict compliance with criminal law regardless of personal beliefs about constitutional validity. The court also addressed separation of powers by declaring Utah Code section 78-8-107(8)(c)’s 90-day time limit on judicial discipline matters constitutionally ineffective, noting that such statutory regulation of the court’s internal process exceeds legislative authority over judicial procedures.
Case Details
Case Name
In Re Inquiry of a Judge, Hon. Walter K. Steed
Citation
2006 UT 10
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20050127
Date Decided
February 24, 2006
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A judge who openly violates criminal law by maintaining plural marriages while serving on the bench must be removed from office for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Standard of Review
Not specified – judicial discipline matter reviewed under constitutional authority
Practice Tip
When facing judicial discipline proceedings, note that the Utah Supreme Court views statutory time limits on its review process as constitutionally ineffective under the separation of powers doctrine.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.