Utah Supreme Court
Can legislators serve on Utah's Judicial Conduct Commission? In re Young Explained
Summary
The Judicial Conduct Commission recommended a public reprimand against Judge David S. Young for ex parte communications with an attorney. Judge Young challenged the Commission’s composition, arguing that legislative appointments to and participation in the Commission violated the separation of powers doctrine.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s 1998 decision in In re Young established critical boundaries for the composition of Utah’s Judicial Conduct Commission under the state’s separation of powers doctrine. The case arose when Judge David S. Young challenged both the Commission’s findings and its constitutional authority to discipline him.
Background and Facts
Judge Young was accused of improper ex parte communications with an attorney for the Park City Board of Education in a student expulsion case. The school district alleged that Judge Young threatened to award attorney’s fees against the district to coerce a settlement. After the Judicial Conduct Commission recommended a public reprimand, Judge Young challenged both the Commission’s findings and its constitutional composition.
Key Legal Issues
The central constitutional question was whether Utah Code Ann. 78-7-27(1)(a) and (b) violated Article V, section 1 of the Utah Constitution by: (1) allowing the Speaker of the House and Senate President to appoint Commission members, and (2) permitting legislators to serve on the Commission while exercising judicial functions.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court held that both aspects of the Commission’s composition violated the separation of powers doctrine. The Court emphasized that Utah’s constitutional provision is more specific than the federal Constitution, stating that “no person charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others.” The Commission exercises judicial authority within the judicial branch, making legislative participation constitutionally impermissible.
Practice Implications
This decision invalidated the Commission’s findings against Judge Young and required legislative restructuring of the Commission. For appellate practitioners, In re Young demonstrates the importance of challenging the constitutional authority of quasi-judicial bodies. The decision reinforces that Utah courts will strictly enforce separation of powers principles, particularly when judicial independence is at stake.
Case Details
Case Name
In re Young
Citation
1998 UT
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 970032
Date Decided
July 10, 1998
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Utah Code Ann. 78-7-27(1)(a) and (b) violates Article V, section 1 of the Utah Constitution because it permits legislative officers to appoint members of the Judicial Conduct Commission and allows legislators to exercise judicial functions.
Standard of Review
Constitutional interpretation reviewed for correctness
Practice Tip
Challenge the constitutional authority of any administrative or quasi-judicial body that includes legislative appointees or members when representing clients in disciplinary proceedings.
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.