Skip to content
Main Menu
Utah Attorney General
Search
Attorney General
Sean D. Reyes
Utah Office of the Attorney General
Alerts
Close
Secondary Navigation

Election Process Statement from AG Reyes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 9, 2020

ELECTION PROCESS STATEMENT FROM UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL SEAN D. REYES
“This is about providing confidence in the election process to ensure it is fair and constitutional.”

SALT LAKE CITY – Today, Utah joined a coalition of attorneys general from 17 states in an amicus brief in support of the Texas petition to the United States Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the election process. The following is a statement from Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes:

“If Americans are to have confidence in the integrity of the election system, it is important the Supreme Court settles the question of who determines the time and place for voting: the legislature or the courts.
 
“This case is not about the propriety of Utah elections. I have great confidence in the bi-partisan work to assure fair and reliable elections in our state. That is why I joined the Utah Auditor, Treasurer and Governor-elect in certifying Utah election results. Rather, we join this amicus because of questions about process and constitutional integrity that need to be answered nationally.
 
“The fundamental constitutional question we need SCOTUS to answer is who really controls the time, place, and manner of elections in individual states? Is it the legislature, as it appears the Constitution commands? Or can that power be delegated or usurped in certain circumstances? The answer affects not only this election but potentially every future election.
 
“This case is not only about one candidate or election cycle, as important as they may be, but the fairness of all elections—current and future. It is about assuring the process is fair and uniform today and becomes so or remains so tomorrow.
 
“If the election was fair, the Supreme Court should say so. If not, it should say that. Either way, it should say something and not avoid the question. That is the only way to settle the constitutional question facing us today and for future generations and elections.
 
“Without the Supreme Court reviewing this matter and rendering its impartial judgment, there will always be questions regarding election integrity. The High Court should speak so we all, as Americans, have more clarity about who should set the terms of elections.
 
“Because all Americans need clarity and confidence in our national elections, I have joined the amicus brief supporting the petition of Texas and urge the Supreme Court to address this issue once and for all.”

The Supreme Court has ordered the defendant states to file a response to Texas’s request by 3 pm tomorrow.

12/10/2020–UPDATE: Attorney General Reyes authorized the state of Utah to join 5 other states in a motion to intervene in the election case.

###

Utah Joins California on Federalism Issue

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 7, 2018

UTAH JOINS CALIFORNIA ON FEDERALISM ISSUE
Eighteen states urge U.S. Supreme Court to follow 1985 precedent

SALT LAKE CITY – Today, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes announced Utah has joined California and sixteen other states asking the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold a Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision stating land use regulation and state property law cases should be heard in state courts before moving into the federal court system.

“From time to time, Utah and California interpret the constitution differently,” said AG Reyes. “In this case, however, we agree that questions about state property laws and land use regulations should be heard in a state court first. Local self-governance, especially on land use issues, is an American principle of federalism we need to preserve.”

The bipartisan coalition hopes the U.S. Supreme Court will affirm the appeals court ruling and the 1985 high court precedent prohibiting landowners from litigating takings claims in federal court until they have exhausted all avenues at the state level. The coalition of states contend that state courts are best situated to resolve complex, local conflicts – especially when individual rights and the needs of the community may be in tension.

The case involves Rose Mary Knick, owner of 90 acres of rural land in eastern Pennsylvania, and the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania. Knick alleged the violation of her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and appealed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals before exhausting state-law remedies. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments of Knick v. Township of Scott in their next session.

Utah joined the California-led brief along with attorneys general from Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia.

# # #

NOTES:

1. You can review the amicus brief here: https://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/17-647-Knick-v.-Township-of-Scott-Amicus-Brief.pdf.

2. For more information on the details of Knick v. Township of Scott, see 
SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/03/justices-grant-review-two-new-cases & Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-647.

3. The AG’s office published a blog explaining its stance. You can read that here: https://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/statebeforefed/.

Utah’s War on the Unreadable Amicus

Well over 800 amicus briefs were submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017.  All were numbered, tagged, diced, and measured for the following five crucial elements of good legal writing:

  • Flow
  • Plain English
  • Punchiness
  • Reading Happiness
  • Sentence Length

Top score? Utah’s Solicitor General Tyler Green, of course. 

Here’s an excerpt from Doctor Adam Feldman’s analysis entitled Getting Rid of those Amicus Blues

The top scoring brief was from Utah’s Solicitor General Tyler Green in Lucia v. SEC.  Another one of Green’s briefs, the one from D.C. v. Wesby, ranked in this top group as well. 

The Utah AG’s Office combines the natural respect of courts for the work of the states with style, readability, and strong arguments. 

Why this matters

“The number of amicus briefs filed each term far outweighs the number of briefs filed by direct parties. These amicus groups vie against one another for the Court’s attention as the resources for evaluating these briefs are limited.  High-quality writing remains one of the best ways for groups to get the Court’s attention. . . “

Bryan Schott has more in Utah Policy.

Read Dr. Feldman’s full report here

Utah Attorney General's Office

AG Reyes Joins Legal Challenge to Protect Children from Sex Trafficking

SALT LAKE CITY October 11, 2016 – Attorney General Sean Reyes announced that Utah had joined 20 other State Attorneys General in an amicus, or “friend of the court” brief, challenging a decision that granted Backpage.com broad protection from civil liability even when it took active steps to promote sex trafficking of children.   Of the more than 11,800 endangered runaways reported to the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children in 2015, one in five were likely victims of child sex trafficking, up from one in six in 2014.

“The internet is increasingly the primary avenue for sex peddlers, including child sex traffickers, to offer the services of their victims for Johns to exploit.” Backpage.com should be held accountable for enabling such predatory conduct to the extent it encourages or fails to take reasonable measures to combat this predatory behavior,” said Attorney General Reyes. “Utah has seen the devastating effects of this kind of illicit exchange just recently when a man seeking sex on Backpage.com stabbed a Utah woman to death and severely injured a second Utah woman after not getting the services he desired.” It is critical that those responsible for enabling any sex exploitation or human trafficking be held fully responsible.”

In the present case, three “Jane Doe” plaintiffs — underage girls who were allegedly marketed for sex through Backpage.com — attempted to sue the website and its operators, only to be turned away by the trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston.

Their lawsuit alleges that Backpage’s conduct violates both federal and Massachusetts laws prohibiting companies from benefiting financially from ventures promoting or facilitating child sex trafficking.

In dismissing the suit, the courts cited a provision of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) that provides protection to websites that passively post third-party content without altering it. Congress passed the Communications Decency Act in 1996 in response to fears about Internet Service Providers becoming liable for defamatory statements made by their online users.

The brief was filed in the first week of October in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 & Jane Doe 3 v. Backpage.com. The brief argues that the Communications Decency Act does not protect a website operator from liability when it creates content that actively promotes sex trafficking of children by encouraging use of language that will attract customers seeking children for sex.  The brief argues that Backpage.com uses language to encourage payment methods that make financial transactions with the traffickers’ untraceable, strips metadata to impair law enforcement’s ability to locate victims, and deletes “string ads” posted by law enforcement.

In related news, Backpage.com CEO Carl Ferrer, 55, was arrested on October 6, 2016, on state felony charges of pimping children following an investigation by the California Attorney General’s office in coordination with the Texas Attorney General’s office. Two controlling shareholders of Backpage.com, Michael Lacey, 68, and James Larkin, 67, have also been criminally charged with conspiracy to commit pimping.

# # #

Site SettingsSettings