Can anyone sue to challenge a city's GRAMA policy? Gordon v. Nostrom Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gordon v. Nostrom provides important guidance on who has statutory standing to challenge governmental entities under the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA). The case clarifies the distinction between having a remedy available and having the right to sue in the first place.

Background and Facts

Brent Gordon emailed Herriman City on December 26, 2022, announcing his intention to inspect city records the following day. When the city responded that it would take time to locate responsive records and estimated a $250 fee for approximately five hours of staff time, Gordon bypassed the administrative appeal process. Instead, he filed suit seeking injunctive relief to inspect records free of charge during business hours. The district court dismissed his case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether Gordon had statutory standing to seek injunctive relief under GRAMA section 63G-2-802(1), which allows district courts to “enjoin any governmental entity or political subdivision that violates or proposes to violate” GRAMA’s provisions. Gordon argued this provision created an independent right of action to challenge governmental policies prospectively.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court held that section 802 “merely provides a remedy; it does not supply a right of action.” The court distinguished between provisions that expressly authorize specific classes of persons to seek judicial review and remedial provisions that specify available relief. GRAMA authorizes judicial review only for requesters appealing access denials, aggrieved persons challenging record classifications, and parties seeking review of appeals board decisions. Since Gordon fell within none of these categories, he lacked statutory standing.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah courts rarely imply private rights of action from statutes. Practitioners challenging governmental records policies must ensure their clients fall within GRAMA’s specific authorization categories. The ruling also emphasizes that remedial provisions like section 802 function similarly to the Declaratory Judgment Act—they provide forms of relief but require an independent right of action. Before filing GRAMA litigation, attorneys should carefully analyze whether their client’s situation fits within the statute’s express authorization framework rather than relying on general remedial language.