Judge signals trouble for Legislature's redistricting appeal

"What if I told you I disagree?" Third District Judge Dianna Gibson asked, flatly rejecting a key argument from Utah legislative attorneys Monday—and signaling deep trouble for lawmakers' efforts to appeal her redistricting rulings.

In a nearly two-hour hearing held on short notice, Gibson grilled legislative attorney Frank Chang about a pair of motions seeking to finalize her rulings in the case, which the legislature says would create an immediate path for appeal—despite ongoing litigation over newer claims involving recent actions taken by lawmakers.

At stake: whether the case goes immediately to the Utah Supreme Court or continues in district court through months more litigation over the legislature's subsequent actions—including SB 1011, which plaintiffs say was another attempt to undermine Prop. 4. The timing could determine whether any appellate ruling affects the 2026 congressional election.

The legislature wants to appeal Gibson’s August 2025 ruling that lawmakers unconstitutionally repealed Prop. 4, the anti-gerrymandering ballot initiative approved by voters in 2018. Gibson also tossed the congressional map approved by the GOP-controlled legislature in 2021. Legislative attorneys say they can’t start that appeal until Gibson enters a final judgment—either on the entire case or on the parts that invalidated the 2021 map and her November decision selecting the plaintiffs’ remedial map for the 2026 election.

Rule 54(b) allows a judge to certify that a specific legal claim is final and ready for appeal, even while other claims in the same lawsuit continue. But there's a catch: courts can only certify complete "claims"—not individual issues or rulings within a claim. Gibson said the legislature is asking her to certify just the August ruling, which addresses only part of what plaintiffs requested in count five.

Count five is the claim that SB 200—which repealed Prop. 4 and imposed legislative standards on the independent redistricting commission—violated the Utah Constitution. It's the heart of the case.

In one of the sharpest exchanges, Chang insisted that Gibson’s August order was final because the plaintiffs were given the relief they sought. The 2021 congressional map was permanently blocked from use in any future elections, and SB200, which repealed Prop. 4, was invalid. He also pointed out that the court selected the plaintiffs’ map for the 2026 election.

“For all intents and purposes, we think that the court’s order is permanent and has resolved those issues,” Chang said.

Judge Gibson wasn’t convinced, saying that those rulings were preliminary, not permanent.

“What If I told you I disagree?” Gibson said. “That injunction exists until we get to the end of the case…and who knows when that may or may not be. So again, I disagree with that. So convince me that this is in effect a permanent order and that there’s actually case law that says by granting a preliminary injunction, the case is over.”

That was a pivotal moment. If the injunctions are preliminary, not permanent, there’s still litigation pending—and no 54(b) appeal.

That clearly caught Chang flat-footed.

“If you disagree with me on that, on the characterization of the order, that obviously puts me in a tough spot,” Chang replied.

The distinction matters because preliminary injunctions are temporary orders that exist during ongoing litigation. If Gibson's November order is just preliminary—not permanent—then Count Five isn't finished, there's still work to be done, and nothing is final enough for a 54(b) appeal.

Gibson also pressed Chang on why the legislature didn’t use other appellate tools it had available. Chang’s answer was notably cautious.

“Your Honor, so I want to be careful here, you know, without getting into any privileged information. I can’t tell you more than what we put in our papers,” Chang answered.

Gibson shot back, “Well, you really didn’t address it in the papers, that’s why I’m asking. There’s really no discussion about why these other appellate tools were not used.”

The implication was clear: The legislature chose to fight Gibson's ruling by passing a replacement map (Map C) instead of immediately appealing. Only after Gibson rejected that map too did lawmakers decide they needed to appeal—but by then, they'd missed the window for cleaner appellate routes.

Chang then explained that lawmakers thought they didn’t have enough time to pursue an appeal on the November order before congressional candidates started filing to run in the 2026 election. In December, lawmakers approved changes to the 2026 calendar, pushing the filing deadline for congressional candidates from Jan. 9 to March 13.

“There was some change in calculus once the governor called a special session in early December. And the legislature was able to convene and push back the election deadlines then. And now we have some time for appeal,” Chang said.

A hidden motive?

Plaintiffs' attorney Mark Garber raised a provocative question: Is the legislature really seeking an appeal—or manufacturing a procedural path to pass yet another map?

Garber cited recent comments by Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, on his podcast suggesting lawmakers might pass a new map if Gibson entered a "permanent" injunction. With the legislative session starting in January and candidate filing not until March, lawmakers would have ample time.

"I guess that is sort of a question mark that I have in light of some of the statements, the public statements that have been made by certain legislators. Senator Weiler on his podcast indicated that the legislature perhaps could pass a new map for the 2026 election if a permanent injunction had been entered,” Garber said.

Lawmakers would certainly have ample opportunity to take that path during the upcoming 2026 legislative session, and approve a new map before the filing window opens in March.

"So it's not entirely clear to me whether this is entirely about an appeal or if this is also about trying to get around the court's ordering of map one for the 2026 election,” Garber added.

When Gibson asked Chang about that possibility, he pushed back.

"I have not heard this podcast interview that Mr. Gaber just mentioned. But setting that aside, you know, I don't think you can impute what one member said in a podcast to the entire body,” Chang said. “"I can tell you that sitting here today... it's the legislature's wish to appeal this court's decisions here and get a ruling from the Utah Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court. And that's what we want to do."

Reading the tea leaves from Gibson’s questions, the hearing strongly suggested trouble for the legislature’s efforts. Gibson repeatedly told Chang that she couldn’t find case law to support his position and did not seem satisfied with Chang’s explanations.

Gibson promised a ruling before Christmas—giving Chang just days to find the legal authority she says doesn't exist. "If there's something out there in Utah law that would support the position that the court can certify that ruling... I would love to see it," she said.

Her tone suggested she wasn't optimistic.