The appellants and appellants-intervenors have effectively explained the errors in the analysis of the District Court opinion below. Sutherland Institute writes separately to supplement the information provided in their briefs regarding the meaning of Utah Constitution, Article X, section 2. In doing so, we also note that a proper reading of Utah Constitution, Article XIII, section 5(5)(b) requires finding in favor of appellants and appellants-intervenors. In the opinion below, the Court paraphrased this section as allowing the State to fund only “existing social service programs.” Ruling and Order at 54. That word could have been inserted by the drafters into the amendment, but was not, and its exclusion from the text is critical. A court cannot add language to a constitutional provision and then use the judicially amended version to resolve disputes under the law. Yet, that is what the Court did, and reversing that clear error could resolve this case.

Read the full PDF version of the report by clicking the button below.