[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6135779,"mediaKeyId","5670296-2b0ad54fff6e776d889e39a998355768","parentId",5670296,"title","Committee seeks Labor Commission and AG briefing after Court of Appeals says ALJs lack inherent power to dismiss claims as sanctions","audioSeconds",1015,"startMs",7490000,"endMs",8505000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5670296-2b0ad54fff6e776d889e39a998355768&start=7490&end=8505","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5670296-2b0ad54fff6e776d889e39a998355768/thumbnail_7490000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6135779/Utah/Committee-seeks-Labor-Commission-and-AG-briefing-after-Court-of-Appeals-says-ALJs-lack-inherent-power-to-dismiss-claims-as-sanctions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6135779-7b7102fcd2a86fb9cefcc21fdf41ad0d/orig.mp4?Expires=1774852550&Signature=ZyRUoEmulVkvyOo1SIEh5o2kWjwVdQCryxsmafJ9pqkS4wzCEMbhb26yFRG4t9q6VV9Jvh~X~-4EcMmCtWt16dLOI7D6QszGAwwvwuN3qv0ChyG3-iD7mao4~drYVsJt8~2gl3DtrCCNl-Tv5TcfoTz3ypB7np6I65CpuzBoDYSLxvj6yQmu1xMWsucDvfsoJDp59IwHPDKa8EWsxKV1kfgKIpQfdwkZvVnQjPC~UnsdnYGzW0-qq0PWXVBo300~5IgxzuVUUPNJduo-efy8NREFJS6ui6IR0rgikrJKxK9vitxVT4IaeaOhqi6iVyfbztl81BoKCEtk-JUDvwXu2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Utah Legislature","date","2025-08-21T00:00:00Z","article","After review of the Court of Appeals decision in Mayhew v. Labor Commission, the Rules Review Committee asked the Labor Commission and the attorney general’s office to brief the committee on administrative law judges’ (ALJ) sanction authority and oversight.

Case and issue
Office of Legislative Research counsel Chris Williams summarized the Mayhew case: the petitioner filed for a hearing with an ALJ at the Labor Commission over workers’ compensation benefits; after a string of motions and disparaging letters directed at the ALJ, the Commission treated the conduct as sanctionable and dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeals reversed that sanctioning in part, holding the Labor Commission did not have inherent statutory authority to dismiss the claim as a sanction for that conduct. The court said the legislature could expand ALJ authority if it chose to do so.

Why it matters
ALJs are executive‑branch employees who preside over administrative hearings across many state agencies (Labor Commission, Tax Commission, Department of Health, and others). The Court of Appeals’ decision reduces the instances in which an ALJ can impose the dismissal remedy as punishment for abusive or contemptuous behavior and leaves open whether the legislature wants to amend statute or agency rulemaking to grant or clarify sanction authority.

Committee action
Committee members asked for further information rather than immediately pursuing legislation. Representative Thurston and others urged caution about expanding dismissal authority, noting dismissal is a severe remedy. Senator Espinosa (speaker identified in transcript) and other members asked the committee to invite the Labor Commission to explain its hearing process, training and oversight and to include the attorney general’s office to clarify the statutory scope of ALJ authority.

The committee adopted a motion to request the Labor Commission and the attorney general’s office appear at a future meeting to explain (mover: Senator Espinosa; second: not specified in transcript). Committee staff will arrange the briefing.

Quotes
“The court decided that the Labor Commission … did not have inherent statutory authority to sanction the petitioner and dismiss the claim,” Chris Williams summarized.

“We’re not going to immediately expand dismissal authority; we want the Labor Commission and AG to explain the current process and oversight so the committee can decide next steps,” a committee member said during debate (paraphrased from the record).

Ending
The committee requested a future briefing by the Labor Commission and the attorney general’s office and will consider the agencies’ explanations before deciding whether to open legislation or take other action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Rules Review and General Oversight Committee - August 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","After the Court of Appeals’ ruling in Mayhew v. Labor Commission, the Administrative Rules Review Committee asked the Labor Commission and the attorney general’s office to brief the committee about administrative law judges’ sanctioning and dismissal authority.","taxTitle","2025 Utah Legislature, Utah Legislature, Utah Legislative Branch, Utah","taxId",78171,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6135788,"State audit says attorney licensing fees exceed regulatory cost; lawmakers press courts and bar for clearer accounting",6769,161000,6930000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5670296-2b0ad54fff6e776d889e39a998355768&start=161&end=6930","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5670296-2b0ad54fff6e776d889e39a998355768/thumbnail_161000.jpg","/articles/6135788/Utah/State-audit-says-attorney-licensing-fees-exceed-regulatory-cost-lawmakers-press-courts-and-bar-for-clearer-accounting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6135788-36575875ac1b4fcfe75b1a9e46c402e5/orig.mp4?Expires=1774852550&Signature=ElDVVAtoxRU93LxxSsj4LA2MtnI3sSb~QKaIkb9UcVybf~qG1SWQUqbOmZZ9lpnfInT1MxDs~iDVYE3a7zGI4elTNGvqzFLTeorUJtsdCiqhMOno9ax4137cZLld2Hh3eiq-2RgbG6jxxjkd0eSnT-lDXIBaGWVnlxm-RFcp0TUBrT6ujRq8ObrbHHZcCatynWtY--g~F4Vu3xTGVg2WvPikhGKQkirWM8MpzL3QcpF02cQJj7D9hWuiCTFR88vDBx17kypn~BXegrCVWByntFZ82jGv6Pshl0qUA-Fhoo3JWNZpHNuQMzW3fjD9LGLexX4F9i7BkcLJuV6Ff2IGzg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a July 2025 Administrative Rules Review Committee meeting, former State Auditor John Dougal and current State Auditor Tina Cannon presented a limited review of attorney licensing fees paid by Utah lawyers and raised questions about how the Utah State Bar allocates overhead and service spending.

The audit found the bar’s annual, court‑approved license fee for active attorneys is “substantially higher than the associated average cost to regulate those practicing attorneys,” and auditors said they were unable to “fully identify the regulatory expenses that should be properly borne by licensed attorneys because the bar does not adequately track its expenses in a manner that allows us to make that determination,” Dougal told the committee.

Why it matters: Fees that are regulatory should reasonably relate to the cost of regulating a profession, auditors said. Where fees fund services that benefit members or public programs, the auditors argued those items should be accounted separately so attorneys can decline or seek refunds for non‑regulatory spending when the law requires it.

What auditors presented
John Dougal, speaking in his capacity as “a former state auditor,” summarized the legal standard the auditors used and the office’s limited review. He cited a Utah case — transcribed as “v 1 oil versus Utah state tax commission” — that the auditors used to distinguish regulatory fees from taxes and non‑regulatory service fees. Dougal told the committee the bar’s accounting did not provide a clear line separating the direct cost of regulation from other activities paid by the license fee.

Current State Auditor Tina Cannon said the office used the same fee criteria it applies statewide. Cannon noted the review was limited, that the bar cooperated with auditors and that the accounting systems “have the ability” to allocate overhead, but the allocation in place did not let auditors isolate regulatory costs.

Auditors’ concerns included:
- The bar mixes regulatory and service functions and does not track expenses in a way that lets auditors isolate the regulatory portion.
- Overhead allocation appeared to be a major driver of excess fee revenue; auditors said the allocation percentage should not be assumed to be zero.
- The bar has, in practice, used licensing revenue to fund activities described in the audit as “lobbying activities,” “legislative activities,” or “public policy action related to the practice of law,” which raises questions about whether those costs are regulatory.

Responses from the courts and the bar
Michael Drexel, assistant state court administrator, told the committee the Supreme Court has received the audit, is reviewing it and “is committed ... to reviewing the reasonableness of the fee and the programs that those fee funds are dedicated to accomplishing.” Drexel also said the court currently views $425 as the fee for active practicing lawyers but that the court is reassessing the reasonableness of that amount.

Elizabeth Wright, executive director of the Utah State Bar, described the bar as “a 5 0 1 c 6 nonprofit professional association,” said the bar maintains annual outside audits and that its financials are publicly available. Wright told the committee the bar complies with Keller‑type limits on political activity and that only spending germane to regulation of the practice of law or administration of the courts is permissible under controlling precedent; she said the bar’s internal processes limit what it will advocate for and that some small refunds for certain political spending are provided to objecting attorneys.

Committee questions and next steps
Lawmakers pressed multiple topics: whether attorneys have input into fee decisions; how the bar’s governance and elected membership participate in budgeting; the legal status of the bar and its claim of governmental immunity in some contexts; and whether the Supreme Court’s rulemaking and the bar’s delegated administrative role leave sufficient transparency and legislative oversight.

Representative Provost and Representative Thurston asked whether the regulated attorneys can influence fee uses and whether lobbying activities are disclosed; Dougal said attorneys can seek refunds for the lobbying portion but a correct refund requires a proper cost allocation. Wright said the bar provides a comment period and that the court sets the fee by rule after considering the bar’s proposal.

Several legislators raised constitutional and antitrust questions, citing cases discussed in the hearing transcript (notably Keller and a labor of cases referenced as examples), and asked whether the legislature should open a formal review or bill file. The committee chair suggested giving the court 60 days to respond with further analysis; other members urged that a bill file be opened to ensure the issue receives legislative study. The committee later opened a joint resolution bill file to consider changes in court rules related to regulating the practice of law (see related committee action below).

What auditors recommended
Auditors recommended the Supreme Court “fully analyze the direct cost of regulating the practice of law, and to develop and use a reasonable methodology for allocating overhead expenses across all functions of the bar,” language Dougal described when presenting the audit’s conclusions and recommendations.

Quotes from the hearing
“I initiated a limited review of attorney licensing fees … the court itself admitted that it was using attorney licensing fees not simply to offset the cost of regulation, but to generate excess revenue to fund … public policy action related to the practice of law,” John Dougal said.

“The office of the Utah State Auditor was unable to fully identify the regulatory expenses that should be properly borne by licensed attorneys because the bar does not adequately track its expenses in a manner that allows us to make that determination,” Dougal said.

“Currently, the Supreme Court feels and believes and has established that the $425 fee for active practicing lawyers is the appropriate amount. But that is subject to consideration and reconsideration,” Michael Drexel said.

“We are a 5 0 1 c 6 nonprofit professional association,” Elizabeth Wright said, adding the bar subjects its finances to outside audits and posts financials online.

Ending
The audit prompted an extended committee discussion and a pledge from the Supreme Court’s representatives to continue review. Lawmakers ranged from urging statutory change to suggesting more oversight and clearer accounting; the court and bar said they are working on clarification and that the court is reviewing the audit’s recommendations.

If the committee proceeds with legislation it could address separation of regulatory and service costs, the refund process for objecting attorneys, and the scope of activities financed by mandatory licensing fees.","At a July 2025 Administrative Rules Review Committee meeting, former State Auditor John Dougal and current State Auditor Tina Cannon presented a limited review of attorney licensing fees and raised questions about how the Utah State Bar allocates overhead and service spending.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6135783,"Department of Agriculture files emergency rules to delay cannabis labeling change, extend kratom registrations",901,6931000,7832000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5670296-2b0ad54fff6e776d889e39a998355768&start=6931&end=7832","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5670296-2b0ad54fff6e776d889e39a998355768/thumbnail_6931000.jpg","/articles/6135783/Utah/Department-of-Agriculture-files-emergency-rules-to-delay-cannabis-labeling-change-extend-kratom-registrations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6135783-1a9ce70cb8760d1a2222520451c2459f/orig.mp4?Expires=1774852550&Signature=MVyXABbWzRMJw04eRyHtg2bDHVTpoW6dXxnuBNulbd9bYQoF13G8ZsxTeoAORvZyfcrn4Z8qGhVBA-jUh7gXtHTon08b-7bdl9NiHdJ7OZgptKXSGQU4MV4fJIDy5OzVF8vXxFw5j2p6ea0YxnV-jEaKKl-MqKgAsJC~n~G8un2ck~M6OWllFf0TeHk4ove-Zx~LsO2Z9nzsjLFkINYNFfrfABpzxP6DAIrEzyCF0EbOON8s6FCHebmOwtdTokTeaBABclNofzheH7hKjUY4ZdtDOpJ7x9~AGnRepwqb9tk5hUaI93N~lehMBwlptfmiOFHf1ClamyvQM83rnWIi1g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At an Administrative Rules Review Committee meeting in July 2025, the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food told lawmakers it had filed two emergency rules to avoid unintended market disruption while it finalizes permanent rule changes.

Deputy Commissioner Amber Brown told the committee the department filed an emergency cannabis processing rule on July 9 to remove a newly added restriction that would have barred directions for use on product labels. Brown said the change, if left in place while businesses reworked labels, “would require them to create new labels for a significant number of products at a high financial cost and would lead to some products being taken off the shelves.” The emergency rule “pull[s] that restriction back,” she said, while the department prepares a permanent compromise.

On kratom, Brown said the department filed an emergency amendment on June 28 that allows regulators to extend a product’s registration period for up to three months. The department said it added limits on certain additives to new kratom rules filed August 15, which are scheduled to take effect September 22. Because some products legally registered under the prior rule would become noncompliant under the new rule, the emergency extension prevents the agency from re‑registering products for a full year that would be unlawful under the updated standard and gives sellers time to move inventory.

Why it matters: The department said the emergency filings are intended to avert immediate patient access or consumer disruption while public comment and permanent rulemaking proceed. The kratom extension was framed as a temporary, safety‑focused measure to avoid allowing previously lawful products to remain on the market for a full year after registration renewal.

Committee discussion
Representative Walter asked whether the emergency filings were intended to fix unintended consequences and Brown confirmed they were. Representative Thurston asked whether kratom industry stakeholders were satisfied; Brown said the extension helps industry run down inventory and adjust to the new rules but that stakeholders may still disagree with the underlying regulatory changes.

Administrative details
- Cannabis processing emergency rule: filed July 9; transcript records the rule would expire in roughly 77 days from filing (emergency period recorded by the department).
- Kratom product registration and labeling emergency rule: filed June 28; transcript records the rule would expire in about 66 days; the department said the new permanent kratom rule was filed August 15 and scheduled to take effect September 22.

Quotes
“We filed an emergency rule to kind of pull that restriction back and we have now met internally and … we can strike a better compromise position,” Amber Brown said.

“The issue here is that as the kratom industry has grown…we have some products that had previously been registered because they were legal under the old rules, but will not be legal when the new rules are in place,” Brown said.

Ending
Department staff said the emergency rules are temporary fixes while they complete permanent rulemaking and stakeholder engagement. Committee members accepted the department’s explanation and did not move to object; the hearing then moved to other agenda items.","The Department of Agriculture and Food filed two emergency rules — one to roll back a new cannabis labeling restriction and another to extend kratom product registrations for up to three months — after industry concerns that permanent rule changes would force costly relabeling or leave products on shelves that would soon be noncompliant.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee seeks Labor Commission and AG briefing after Court of Appeals says ALJs lack inherent power to dismiss claims as sanctions

State audit says attorney licensing fees exceed regulatory cost; lawmakers press courts and bar for clearer accounting

Department of Agriculture files emergency rules to delay cannabis labeling change, extend kratom registrations