Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Justice Court Capacity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Salt Lake City Justice Court seeks flexibility for judgeships and temporary judges amid rising caseloads
Summary
Justice Court officials and city staff asked the council to remove a cap on the number of full- and part-time judges and to allow temporary judge appointments, citing a large rise in criminal filings and crowded calendars that strain court, prosecutors and defense resources.
Salt Lake City Justice Court officials asked the council on Sept. 9 to amend city code to remove language that limits the court to five full-time and three part-time judges and to permit the appointment of temporary judges for absences and overflow coverage.
Kate Fairchild, Justice Court administrator, said the court’s criminal filings have increased significantly and described two proposed ordinance changes: removing the numerical cap on judgeships to allow future planning and permitting the court to appoint temporary judges under criteria aligned with the Utah Code of Judicial Administration 3-1-108. Fairchild said the Administrative Office of the Courts’ weighted-caseload methodology currently recommends 6.31 judges for the Salt Lake City Justice Court based on recent filing averages.
Council policy analyst Michael Sanders and Justice Court staff walked council members through charts showing a 73% increase in criminal case filings since 2016 and a roughly 150% increase in monthly hearing averages in recent months. Fairchild said the court restructured in 2024 to address immediate needs but has exhausted internal reorganization options without reducing overload or staff burnout.
Council members and agency partners emphasized the systemwide nature of the problem. A representative from the district attorney’s office said the system is “absolutely overwhelmed right now,” noting arraignment calendars with several hundred matters and longer queues. A public defender representative told councilors that their lawyers carry caseloads on the order of about 1,100 open cases each — far exceeding recommended guidelines — and that jail-related logistics (transport and access) create additional burdens.
Council member Young voiced support for the code updates while noting budget implications; councilors and court staff said any new full-time judges would still require standard budget approval processes, Judicial Council sign-off for a new position, and review through the Administrative Office of the Courts’ weighted caseload model.
Court staff asked the council for the code change to allow both short-term coverage (temporary judges) and planning flexibility for future regular judgeships so the court and its partners can address a dramatic rise in filings and the resulting scheduling delays. No formal action was taken during the work session.
