Can judges challenge law constitutionality in disciplinary proceedings? In re: The Honorable Kevin Christensen Explained

The Utah Supreme Court addressed a critical question of judicial conduct and constitutional challenges in In re: The Honorable Kevin Christensen, establishing clear boundaries for when judges may assert constitutional defenses in disciplinary proceedings.

Background and Facts

Judge Kevin Christensen served as a justice court judge for four Utah municipalities from 2009-2011. Under Utah Code section 78A-7-206(1)(e), multi-municipality judges cannot receive combined salaries exceeding a district court judge’s salary. Christensen’s total compensation exceeded the statutory cap by approximately $7,000-$7,700 annually during this period. When the Administrative Office of the Courts discovered the violation in 2011, the Judicial Conduct Commission filed formal charges. Christensen stipulated to the facts and violations, subject only to a constitutional challenge to the salary cap statute.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Judge Christensen could assert a constitutional challenge to the salary cap statute for the first time in disciplinary proceedings. Christensen argued the statute violated the uniform operation of laws provision of the Utah Constitution. The court also addressed the interaction between the salary cap and the statutory prohibition on diminishing judicial salaries during a judge’s term.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court declined to reach the constitutional question, holding that judges cannot properly assert constitutional defenses for the first time in disciplinary proceedings after violating the law. The court emphasized that “the appropriate standard of behavior for a judge is to observe the law as it exists at the time,” and if seeking to challenge it, to do so through proper legal channels contemporaneously. The court adopted the JCC’s recommendations for censure and repayment of excess salary, finding no mitigating factors sufficient to justify a lesser sanction.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that judges must comply with existing law regardless of potential constitutional concerns, and any constitutional challenges must be raised contemporaneously through appropriate legal proceedings. The ruling reinforces that judges are held to higher standards of legal compliance than the general public, and post-violation constitutional arguments will not excuse judicial misconduct. For practitioners, this case demonstrates the importance of immediate compliance with statutory requirements and proper procedural channels for constitutional challenges.