Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hb155 Rollback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate restores prior code, voting to roll back parts of HB155 amid pending federal litigation
Summary
First substitute House Bill 1004, restoring code provisions changed by HB155 while litigation proceeds, passed the Senate 24–3. Sponsors argued a federal injunction blocking parts of HB155 made a rollback appropriate; opponents warned of legal costs previously incurred.
The Utah Senate passed first substitute House Bill 1004, a measure described by sponsors as a rollback of changes adopted earlier in the year by House Bill 155. Lawmakers said federal litigation had placed a preliminary injunction on HB155 and that restoring prior code was a prudent interim step while the case proceeds.
Senator Hankins, explaining the bill, said HB155 "intends to prohibit federal agencies... from attempting to invoke federal assimilative crimes act to enforce and prosecute citizens under state and local laws and ordinances" and noted a federal district court had issued a preliminary injunction on June 28 blocking HB155 pending trial. He argued restoring the prior code would avoid further difficulties while litigation unfolds and noted support from the Utah Association of Counties and the Utah Sheriffs' Association.
During floor debate, Senator Jones asked about legal fees already incurred in defending HB155, citing roughly 300 hours of work and about $30,000 in two months — a figure others disputed on-ground as attributable to the attorney general's existing budget rather than outside counsel. Senator DeBackus urged caution about pursuing legal actions that could produce recurring legal costs.
After debate, the Senate voted under suspension of the rules. The clerk announced that the first substitute HB1004 had received 24 yay votes, 3 nay votes and 2 absences, and that it would be signed by the president and sent to the House for the speaker's signature and enrollment.
The bill's sponsor and supporters framed the measure as a temporary restoration of prior law while the courts resolve the constitutional challenge; some senators urged more careful review of bills to avoid future litigation costs.
