Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes H.B. 100 requiring bonds for environmental litigation that seeks injunctions, amid constitutional concerns
Summary
H.B. 100 would require entities seeking stays or injunctions in environmental litigation to post bonds and authorizes administrative dissolution for non‑compliance; supporters cited project delays such as Legacy Highway, while critics raised open‑courts, Supremacy Clause and First Amendment concerns.
The Utah House passed first substitute H.B. 100 on Feb. 14, 2006, a measure that would require entities filing environmental lawsuits that seek a stay or injunction affecting projects in Utah to post a bond covering possible state costs and damages, and directs the Division of Corporations and Commercial Code to administratively dissolve entities that fail to post required bonds.
Representative Erin Tilton, the sponsor, framed the bill as a response to costly environmental litigation that can delay major infrastructure projects, describing it as a tool to make whole parties who suffer damages from court‑ordered project delays. He cited the Legacy Highway litigation as an example of lengthy court battles that hampered project progress.
Opponents on the floor pointed to a legislative research constitutional note (02/13/2006) and raised three categories of legal concern: (1) Utah’s open‑courts provision could be violated if bond requirements effectively bar judicial review for entities that cannot post large bonds; (2) the Supremacy Clause and federal preemption concerns could arise because the bill might limit access to federal courts or federal statutory remedies; and (3) First Amendment association and speech issues might be implicated if forced dissolution chills advocacy through litigation. Representative Skupzki and others urged caution, highlighting the risk that small nonprofits or others might be unable to secure bonds and thus lose access to remedies.
Proponents responded that no one would be barred from access to courts because existing statute allows litigation to continue even if a corporation is administratively dissolved, and they argued the state has a right to decide which entities it recognizes as authorized to do business in Utah. The Department of Environmental Quality did not oppose the bill, the sponsor said. After extended debate the House passed H.B. 100, recorded 53 yes to 18 no, and referred it to the Senate.
Next steps: H.B. 100 will be considered in the Senate; critics signaled the measure could face constitutional challenge if enacted.
