Gregory v. Shurtleff
299 P.3d 1098
Utah2013Background
- Appellants (former and current legislators and officials) sued SB 2, arguing four constitutional challenges to Article VI and X; Board of Education not a party.
- District court dismissed Article VI claims for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment on Article X claims; standing not addressed initially.
- Appellants sought injunctions and costs/fees; Legislature allowed amicus curiae appearance.
- Main issues: whether SB 2 violates single-subject and clear-title requirements (Article VI) and whether delegations to the Department or private entities violate Article X.
- Court held Article VI claims facially do not violate single-subject or clear-title; Appellants have public-interest standing for Article VI claims; Article X claims lack standing; remanded to dismiss Article X; Article VI claims affirmed as dismissed on the merits.
- Court vacated summary judgment on Article X and remanded for dismissal; affirmed district court’s dismissal of Article VI claims on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue SB 2 | Appellants lack traditional standing | Standing exists via public-interest theory | Appellants have public-interest standing for Article VI claims (but not for Article X) |
| Single-subject requirement | SB 2 contains more than one subject | Bill relates to a single public-education subject | Bill does not facially violate single-subject rule |
| Clear-title requirement | Title misdescribes or under-expresses subject | Long title adequately expresses subject | Long title sufficiently expresses bill’s subject; no clear-title violation |
| Article X standing | Appellants have standing due to Board roles and public-interest | Appellants lack appropriateness and injury | Article X claims lack standing; remand to district court to dismiss for lack of standing |
| Merits of Article VI claims | SB 2 violates Article VI, Section 22 | SB 2 does not violate Article VI | District court’s dismissal affirmed; SB 2 does not violate single-subject or clear-title |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. Swan, 675 P.2d 1145 (Utah 1983) (traditional standing; public-interest standing discussed later in Cedar Mountain)
- Cedar Mountain Envtl., Inc. v. Tooele Cnty. ex rel. TooeleCnty. Comm’n, 214 P.3d 95 (Utah 2009) (two-part test for public-interest standing: appropriateness and public importance)
- Sierra Club v. Utah Air Quality Bd., 148 P.3d 960 (Utah 2006) (public-interest standing framework (appropriateness + public importance))
- Utah Transit Authority v. Local 382 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, 289 P.3d 582 (Utah 2012) (mootness/public-interest standing discussion; limits on discretionary standing)
- Brown v. Div. of Water Rights of the Dep’t of Natural Resources, 228 P.3d 747 (Utah 2010) (standing as jurisdictional requirement; public-interest considerations)