Utah Supreme Court justice recuses himself from Planned Parenthood lawsuit over abortion ban

Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Utah Supreme Court Justice John Nielsen recused himself from hearing a lawsuit over Utah's abortion law.
As a private attorney, Nielsen had filed a "friend-of-the-court" brief in the case on behalf of an anti-abortion group.
A lower court judge will replace Nielsen for arguments on Oct. 5.

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah Supreme Court Justice John Nielsen has recused himself from hearing an appeal in the case over the state's abortion ban as the high court prepares for arguments next month.

Nielsen, who was appointed to the court last year, previously worked as a private attorney and filed an amicus brief — or "friend-of-the-court," meaning he was not directly involved — on behalf of Pro-Life Utah in the abortion case in 2022. Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, which has been suing over Utah's so-called abortion trigger law since 2022, asked the court to disqualify Nielsen from hearing the case in July.

"Justice Nielsen's participation as counsel for amicus (brief) in a prior appeal to this court in this case falls within the circumstances 'in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned,'" lawyers for Planned Parenthood wrote in a court filing. "Justice Nielsen 'served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy' and advocated a position on the merits adversarial to PPAU. Accordingly, a reasonable person might question Justice Nielsen's impartiality."

Nielsen voluntarily recused himself from the case last week, according to the court clerk. He initially declined to recuse himself, according to a notice filed by the clerk in July, which said "Nielsen does not believe that amicus representation is a basis for disqualification."

"The duty to sit and render judgment on a case and the duty to recuse from a case both reflect important values, including judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary," the latest filing by the court clerk states. "Sometimes those duties come into tension and create difficult questions. This is one of those cases. Though Justice Nielsen still believes that there are strong reasons supporting the duty to sit here, he concludes on further reflection that the duty to recuse is stronger."

A lower court judge will fill in to hear arguments in the case next month.

"The rules about recusals are objective and clear — a judge should recuse when their impartiality might be reasonably questioned," Shireen Ghorbani, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, said in a statement. "We appreciate Judge Nielsen for recusing in our case."

The case stems from a Utah law banning abortion with few exceptions that was passed in 2020 and briefly took effect in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. A district court judge quickly issued a preliminary injunction halting the law after Planned Parenthood Association of Utah sued to block it.

Utah's high court has previously allowed that injunction to remain in place, and is now getting set to hear arguments over a new Utah law creating a panel of three judges to hear cases involving constitutional issues.

The state quickly requested to have several high profile cases — including the case about Utah's abortion law and another lawsuit over the state's redistricting maps — moved to be heard by three-judge panels. Plaintiffs in those cases, including Planned Parenthood, then challenged the new law, setting up the latest round of legal wrangling.

Justices will hear oral arguments in three of those challenges to the constitutional panels on Oct. 5.

The Key Takeaways for this article were generated with the assistance of large language models and reviewed by our editorial team. The article, itself, is solely human-written.