Utah Attorney General

The Attorney General of Utah is the state's elected chief legal officer, heading the Utah Department of Justice and serving as the primary legal advisor to state government entities, while representing Utah in civil and criminal litigation and overseeing law enforcement initiatives.^[1][2] Established in the Utah Constitution upon statehood in 1896, the position involves a four-year term with no restrictions on reelection.^[1] The office enforces state laws, defends constitutional rights, and pursues public protection efforts, such as combating human trafficking and opioid distribution, though it has been marked by internal challenges including high-profile corruption cases against former incumbents Mark Shurtleff (2001–2013) and John Swallow (2013), who faced charges related to bribery and influence peddling.^[3][4] Recent holder Sean Reyes (2013–2025) advanced multi-state lawsuits against perceived federal overreach but drew audits for transparency lapses and conflicts tied to external affiliations.^[5][6] Derek Brown, a Republican elected in November 2024 and inaugurated in January 2025, now leads the office, emphasizing constitutional enforcement and joining efforts to contest policies like birthright citizenship expansions.^[7][8]

Role and Powers

Constitutional Duties

The Utah Constitution, in Article VII, Section 16, designates the Attorney General as the legal adviser to state officers, subject to exceptions outlined elsewhere in the document, such as independent counsel for the lieutenant governor, state auditor, and state treasurer in certain capacities. This role ensures unified legal guidance for executive functions, drawing on the officeholder's expertise to interpret statutes, advise on compliance, and mitigate litigation risks arising from official actions.^[9] The same section authorizes the Attorney General to undertake additional duties as prescribed by state law, empowering the legislature to define operational responsibilities without embedding them directly in the constitution. This framework reflects a deliberate allocation of authority, limiting constitutional specificity to advisory functions while deferring prosecutorial, defensive, and opinion-rendering tasks—such as representing the state in court or responding to queries from the governor or legislature—to statutory elaboration under Utah Code Title 67, Chapter 5.^[10][9] This structure underscores the office's position as a constitutional check on executive overreach, prioritizing legal counsel to prevent disputes, while statutory expansions address practical enforcement needs like defending state interests in civil and criminal matters. No amendments to Section 16 have altered these core provisions since statehood in 1896, maintaining a lean constitutional outline amid evolving legislative directives.^[9]

Enforcement and Litigation Authority

The Utah Attorney General holds primary responsibility for representing the state in litigation matters under Article VII, Section 16 of the Utah Constitution, which mandates the office to "prosecute or defend all causes to which the state or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party." This authority encompasses both civil and criminal actions where the state's interests are directly implicated, though routine criminal prosecutions are generally delegated to county attorneys and district attorneys pursuant to Utah Code § 17-18a-301 and § 77-10a-1. The Attorney General may intervene in criminal cases involving multistate or specialized issues, such as antitrust violations or public corruption, but lacks unilateral power to supersede local prosecutors without statutory basis or gubernatorial directive.^[2] Statutory expansions in Utah Code Title 67, Chapter 5 delineate specific enforcement powers, authorizing the Attorney General to initiate civil actions for violations of state laws, including consumer protection, Medicaid fraud, and securities regulations.^[2] For example, under Utah Code § 13-11-3, the office enforces the Consumer Sales Practices Act through injunctions, restitution, and civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation, often targeting deceptive trade practices. In antitrust matters, Utah Code § 76-10-310 grants authority to pursue both civil and criminal remedies against monopolistic conduct, as demonstrated in historical cases like the prosecution of group boycotts under the Utah Antitrust Act.^[11] The office frequently leads or joins multistate litigation to enforce federal and state laws. In September 2023, Utah filed suit against Meta Platforms, Inc., alleging the company engaged in deceptive practices that harmed minors through addictive features on Instagram and Facebook, seeking injunctive relief and damages under consumer protection statutes.^[12] Similarly, in July 2021, Utah co-led a 37-state antitrust action against Google LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing the firm of monopolizing the Android app distribution market via anticompetitive agreements.^[13] These efforts underscore the Attorney General's role in defending state economic interests against corporate misconduct, with recoveries often directed to consumer restitution funds. In election-related enforcement, the Attorney General's Justice Division has pursued criminal charges in cases of statewide significance, such as the March 2025 filing of 11 lawsuits alleging forgery in voter signature gathering for ballot initiatives, invoking authority under Utah Code § 20A-1-1001 for election code violations.^[14] The office also defends the state in federal challenges, including water rights disputes and regulatory appeals, while coordinating with other agencies to enforce orders under the Administrative Procedures Act via civil penalties. Limitations persist, however; the Attorney General cannot independently prosecute felonies absent delegation, reflecting Utah's decentralized prosecutorial structure designed to preserve local accountability.^[10]

Advisory Functions

The Utah Attorney General functions as the primary legal advisor to state officers, except where otherwise specified by the Utah Constitution, which mandates performance of such duties as prescribed by law.^[15] This advisory role encompasses providing formal written opinions on questions of law, without fee, in response to requests from the governor, the state Legislature, or any state officer, board, department, or commission.^[10] These opinions interpret statutes, constitutional provisions, and legal precedents to guide official decision-making and policy implementation, though they generally carry persuasive rather than binding authority outside judicial contexts.^[16] Under Utah Code § 67-5-1, the attorney general must also attend legislative sessions upon request to offer real-time counsel and prepare drafts of legal instruments, such as contracts or legislation, pertaining to state business.^[10] For legislative inquiries specifically, opinions issued under § 67-5-1.1 establish a rebuttable presumption of legal correctness in subsequent court proceedings, enhancing their influence on statutory interpretation. The office's divisions, including those focused on specific agencies like the Department of Human Services, deliver ongoing transactional advice, litigation support, and risk assessment to ensure compliance with state and federal law.^[17] Requests for advisory opinions typically originate from authorized state entities addressing official duties, with the attorney general's office prioritizing timely responses to support executive and legislative functions.^[16] This role underscores the attorney general's position as counselor to state government, distinct from enforcement activities, and aids in preempting litigation by clarifying legal boundaries before actions are taken.^[10]

Historical Background

State of Deseret Era (1849)

The provisional State of Deseret was established on March 8, 1849, by Latter-day Saint settlers in the Salt Lake Valley under the leadership of Brigham Young, following their exodus from Nauvoo, Illinois, amid persecution.^[18] This self-organized government adopted a constitution on March 10, 1849, modeled after that of Iowa Territory, which divided powers into legislative, executive, and judicial branches, including provision for an attorney general as the chief legal officer responsible for advising the governor, representing the state in legal matters, and overseeing prosecutions.^[19] The constitution emphasized separation of powers while reflecting the settlers' theocratic influences, with elections held for state officers on March 12, 1849, by the General Assembly.^[20] Daniel H. Wells was elected attorney general on March 12, 1849, serving in this capacity for the duration of the provisional government's operation.^[21] Born on October 27, 1814, in Farmington, Connecticut, Wells had joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1834, migrated to Nauvoo by 1840, and held prior roles such as justice of the peace there, but possessed no formal legal training—a common circumstance among early Mormon leaders who initially regarded professional lawyers with suspicion as potential sources of contention.^[22] His duties likely focused on rudimentary legal organization, such as drafting ordinances for land distribution, resource allocation, and dispute resolution in a frontier context lacking established courts or bar associations, though specific case records are scarce due to the era's emphasis on communal self-reliance over adversarial litigation.^[23] The attorney general's office operated within a broader executive structure that included Brigham Young as governor, Willard Richards as secretary of state, and Newel K. Whitney as treasurer, with the provisional government prioritizing survival needs like irrigation, defense against Native American conflicts, and petitioning the U.S. Congress for recognition as a state encompassing over 200,000 square miles from the Sierra Nevada to the Rockies.^[19] Congress rejected the statehood bid in September 1850, reorganizing the area as the federally appointed Utah Territory under the Compromise of 1850, which dissolved Deseret's independent offices, including the attorney general position, and imposed U.S. territorial officials, marking the transition from provisional to federal oversight.^[23] During its brief existence, the Deseret attorney general's role exemplified the settlers' attempt at autonomous governance amid federal neglect, though its legal functions remained informal and subordinated to ecclesiastical authority.^[22]

Utah Territory Period (1850–1896)

The Utah Territory was organized by the Organic Act of September 9, 1850, which established a framework for territorial government including a governor, secretary, and judiciary appointed by the President, but did not provide for an Attorney General.^[24] The territorial legislature, dominated by Latter-day Saint settlers under Brigham Young's influence, created the office of Attorney General through an act passed on March 18, 1852, specifying election by joint vote of the legislative assembly for a one-year term unless sooner removed by the governor with legislative consent.^[25] The role encompassed prosecuting and defending suits on behalf of the territory, providing legal advice to the governor and legislature, and attending to all civil and criminal business under territorial law, distinct from the federally appointed U.S. Attorney who handled federal prosecutions.^[24][26] Hosea Stout, a prominent Mormon pioneer and captain of the Nauvoo Legion, was appointed as the territory's first Attorney General effective March 1850, bridging the provisional State of Deseret era into territorial governance; he continued in the role post-1852 act, handling early legal matters such as land disputes and militia-related proceedings amid settler expansion.^[27] Subsequent elections filled the office with local attorneys aligned with the dominant Latter-day Saint population, including James Ferguson and Albert Carrington in the 1850s, who navigated probate court jurisdictions and territorial ordinances during the Utah War of 1857–1858, when federal troops were dispatched over fears of rebellion and theocratic control.^[28] By the late 1860s, escalating federal scrutiny of polygamy—practiced openly under territorial tolerance—intensified jurisdictional conflicts between territorial and federal authorities. Zerubbabel Snow, elected in January 1869, served until 1874 and exemplified these tensions through his defense of territorial sovereignty; in a formal communication to the legislature, he argued against federal overreach into local judicial processes.^[29] Snow's tenure culminated in Snow v. United States (1873), where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the legislature's authority to elect a territorial Attorney General but delimited its prosecutorial powers to territorial law, excluding federal crimes like counterfeiting, thereby affirming separation from the U.S. Attorney's domain while rejecting claims of inherent territorial supremacy in mixed jurisdictions.^[30][24] This ruling reflected broader causal dynamics of federal-territorial friction, driven by congressional acts like the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, which imposed 13,000 potential indictments but yielded few convictions due to local resistance and evidentiary challenges.^[30] Throughout the period, territorial Attorneys General operated within a legislative assembly that enacted codes adapting common law to frontier conditions, including provisions for probate courts handling most civil matters until the federal Poland Act of 1874 curtailed their criminal jurisdiction to bolster anti-polygamy enforcement.^[31] The office's local election ensured alignment with settler interests, contrasting with federally imposed officials, but recurrent vacancies and short terms—often extended informally—highlighted instability amid population growth from 11,380 in 1850 to 276,749 by 1890, complicating enforcement in remote settlements.^[32] As statehood campaigns intensified post-1890 Manifesto renouncing polygamy, the territorial Attorney General's role waned, paving the way for constitutional establishment of the office upon Utah's admission as a state on January 4, 1896.^[33]

Statehood and 20th Century Developments (1896–2000)

Utah achieved statehood on January 4, 1896, following ratification of its constitution, which established the Attorney General as an elected executive officer responsible for representing the state in legal matters, advising the governor and legislature, and supervising law enforcement prosecutions.^[34] The office initially operated with limited resources, focusing on civil suits involving public lands, taxation, and disputes over natural resources amid Utah's transition from territorial status, where federal oversight had constrained local legal autonomy. Early Attorneys General handled cases related to railroad rates and mining claims, reflecting the state's economic reliance on extractive industries and transportation infrastructure. Throughout the mid-20th century, the Attorney General's role expanded with population growth and legislative mandates, incorporating advisory opinions on emerging issues like labor regulations and public utilities. By the 1960s, the office addressed environmental concerns, including water allocation amid interstate compacts and federal reclamation projects critical to Utah's agriculture and urban development. Under Phil L. Hansen (1965–1968) and subsequent holders, the office began formalizing divisions for specialized litigation, laying groundwork for broader enforcement capacities. Vernon B. Romney, serving from 1969 to 1977, exemplified the office's evolving resource protection mandate by litigating to affirm state ownership of mineral rights in the Great Salt Lake, preventing exploitation by private entities and securing revenues estimated in billions for Utah taxpayers through potassium sulfate and other extracts.^[35] This action underscored causal links between legal assertions of sovereignty and economic benefits in a state where saline lakes posed both ecological risks and commercial opportunities. Romney's tenure also involved defending state sovereignty against federal overreach in land use, aligning with Utah's historical tensions over public domain control. By the late 20th century, the office had grown into a department with dozens of attorneys, emphasizing consumer protection statutes enacted in response to national trends and local frauds in real estate and finance. Jan Graham, the first woman elected to the position (1993–2000), directed Utah's involvement in the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement with tobacco manufacturers, yielding over $200 million for the state by 2000 to fund anti-smoking programs and health costs, based on evidence of industry deception regarding nicotine addiction and youth marketing.^[36] Her administration prioritized multistate suits, reflecting the office's shift toward collaborative enforcement against corporate misconduct while maintaining independence from federal dominance.^[37]

21st Century Evolution (2000–Present)

Mark L. Shurtleff, a Republican, was elected Utah Attorney General in November 2000, assuming office on January 8, 2001, and serving three terms until his resignation on December 30, 2013.^[38][37] During his tenure, Shurtleff's office pursued high-profile consumer protection efforts, including multistate settlements against tobacco companies and initiatives targeting internet fraud and identity theft, earning national recognition for innovative legal strategies.^[39] However, his later years were overshadowed by federal and state investigations into alleged bribery and influence peddling involving real estate developers, leading to his 2014 arrest on six felony counts; Shurtleff was acquitted on all charges in March 2017 after a trial that highlighted prosecutorial overreach in interpreting Utah's bribery statutes.^[40][41]
Governor Gary Herbert appointed Sean D. Reyes, also a Republican and the state's first Filipino-American statewide elected official, to succeed Shurtleff on December 30, 2013; Reyes won special election in 2014 and full terms in 2016 and 2020.^[42] Under Reyes, the office expanded efforts against human trafficking through operations yielding hundreds of arrests, spearheaded the Utah Opioid Command structure that secured over $1 billion in settlements from pharmaceutical manufacturers by 2023, and joined multistate lawsuits challenging federal policies on immigration enforcement and environmental regulations.^[43][44] Reyes's administration also prioritized combating synthetic drug distribution, resulting in significant seizures and prosecutions.^[43] Reyes's tenure, however, drew scrutiny for transparency lapses and perceived conflicts of interest, including a 2025 legislative audit documenting his promotion of the nonprofit Operation Underground Railroad using state resources, withholding of public records, and conducting official business from a private barbershop, which fueled bipartisan calls for reform.^[45][5] These issues echoed Shurtleff-era concerns, contributing to a pattern of ethical probes that strained public trust in the office, though Reyes maintained his actions advanced public safety priorities without personal gain.^[6] In the November 5, 2024, general election, Republican Derek Brown, former Utah Republican Party chair and state legislator, defeated Democrat Rudy Bautista and other challengers to win the office, assuming duties on January 8, 2025.^[46][47] Brown has pledged to enhance accountability through improved record-keeping and ethics training, while sustaining ongoing litigations against major technology firms for antitrust violations and pharmaceutical companies for deceptive marketing, signaling a continuity in aggressive enforcement amid vows to address prior governance shortcomings.^[48][49] Overall, the office has evolved from early 2000s focus on domestic consumer issues toward broader interstate and federal confrontations, tempered by recurring internal accountability challenges that have prompted structural introspection.^[37]

List of Attorneys General

Attorneys General of the State of Deseret

The provisional State of Deseret, organized by Mormon pioneers on March 12, 1849, established a constitution that included provision for an Attorney General to represent the government in legal affairs, though the entity received no formal recognition from the United States and operated solely under local authority until supplanted by the Utah Territory in 1850.^[19][50] Daniel H. Wells served as the sole Attorney General during this period, appointed to the position on March 12, 1849, alongside other executive officers such as Governor Brigham Young and Secretary Willard Richards.^[19][22] Born on October 27, 1814, in Rochester, New York, Wells converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1834 and migrated to the Salt Lake Valley in 1848, where he contributed to early governance and military organization as lieutenant general of the Nauvoo Legion.^[21] In his role as Attorney General, Wells handled nascent legal functions for the theocratic provisional state, including potential representation in disputes over land claims and self-governance amid petitions to Congress for statehood, which proposed vast boundaries encompassing parts of ten modern states but were rejected in favor of a territorially limited Utah.^[19][51] His service ended with the federal imposition of territorial status on September 9, 1850, after which he transitioned to roles in the new Utah territorial government and later church leadership, including ordination as an apostle in 1856.^[21][52]

Attorneys General of Utah Territory

The Attorneys General of Utah Territory served from the territory's establishment on September 9, 1850, until Utah achieved statehood on January 4, 1896. Under the Organic Act creating the territory, the position was initially a presidential appointment, but the Mormon-dominated territorial legislature often elected local figures to the role, reflecting the unique political dynamics where federal oversight clashed with provisional governance under Brigham Young. These officials handled legal advice to the governor and legislature, prosecuted territorial cases, and navigated tensions between federal law and local practices, including polygamy prosecutions and land disputes.^[32][53] Hosea Stout, a prominent Mormon pioneer and lawyer, was the first to hold the office, beginning service in March 1850 as one of the initial territorial appointees aligned with the provisional State of Deseret structure transitioning to federal oversight. Stout, who had been admitted to the bar in 1851 as among Utah's earliest practicing attorneys, focused on establishing legal precedents amid settlement challenges.^[54][27] Subsequent elections by the territorial legislature filled the role with figures like Albert Carrington, elected on January 5, 1856, who combined legal duties with surveying and legislative service. Zerubbabel Snow, a judge and associate justice earlier in the territory, was elected Attorney General on January 19, 1869, and issued official communications on legislative matters through at least 1874, including responses to assembly votes on territorial administration. Snow continued in legal roles into the 1870s, handling cases that reached federal review.^[55][56][24] Later appointments included A. C. Bishop in 1895, amid the final push for statehood and federal audits of territorial accounts. Records of interim or short-term holders remain fragmentary due to incomplete federal documentation and local election irregularities, but the office emphasized defense of territorial interests against congressional scrutiny over polygamy and theocratic governance.^[57]

Attorneys General of the State of Utah

The Attorneys General of the State of Utah have been elected since the state's admission to the Union on January 4, 1896, serving four-year terms without term limits. The officeholder represents the state in legal matters, enforces laws, and advises state agencies. As of 2025, 22 individuals have held the position.^[1] John Swallow resigned amid investigations into alleged corruption, leading to his appointment of Sean Reyes as successor, who was later elected.^[37] Derek Brown was elected on November 5, 2024, and assumed office on January 7, 2025.^[58]

Notable Figures and Contributions

Pioneering Attorneys General

Hosea Stout served as the first Attorney General of Utah Territory beginning in March 1850, playing a foundational role in establishing the territory's legal framework amid tensions between local Mormon settlers and federal authorities.^[54] As one of the initial lawyers admitted to the Utah bar in 1851, Stout defended territorial interests during the Utah War of 1857–1858, countering federal judicial overreach and advocating for local governance against appointed non-resident judges.^[28] His efforts helped preserve provisional legal continuity in a frontier context marked by limited federal oversight and reliance on ecclesiastical courts prior to formal territorial organization.^[59] Zerubbabel Snow, who held the office from 1869 to 1874, advanced territorial jurisprudence during a period of intensified federal scrutiny over polygamy and land disputes. Snow, previously an associate justice from 1851 to 1854, issued key legal opinions, including a 1874 communication to the territorial legislature on legislative matters, and represented Utah in Snow v. United States (1873), challenging federal election interference claims.^[30] His tenure bridged judicial and prosecutorial roles, contributing to defenses against antipolygamy legislation like the Poland Act of 1874, which expanded federal judicial power in the territory.^[60] Snow's work exemplified the AG's role in navigating dual sovereignty, prioritizing empirical territorial records over federal impositions.^[33] Following statehood in 1896, A. C. Bishop became the inaugural elected Attorney General of the State of Utah, serving from 1896 to 1901 and formalizing the office under the new constitution.^[57] Bishop's administration focused on integrating territorial precedents into state law, including oversight of early regulatory enforcement and civil suits, setting precedents for the AG's advisory capacity to the legislature and governor.^[61] These early officeholders pioneered the AG's function as a bulwark for state autonomy, emphasizing first-principles adherence to local statutes amid national pressures.^[37]

Modern Leaders and Key Cases

Mark Shurtleff served as Utah Attorney General from 2001 to 2013, becoming the first to win re-election to the office twice, in 2004 and 2008.^[38] During his tenure, Shurtleff prioritized public safety measures, including the establishment of Utah's AMBER Alert system to aid in child abduction recoveries and advocacy for immigration enforcement reforms.^[62] However, his administration faced allegations of corruption, leading to felony charges in 2014 for allegedly accepting improper gifts and bribes; these were dismissed in 2016 after multiple trials.^[40][63] John Swallow briefly succeeded Shurtleff in 2013 but resigned amid similar corruption investigations, which resulted in his acquittal following a 2016 trial.^[6] Sean Reyes, appointed in December 2013 and elected in 2016 and 2020, led the office until January 2025, focusing on combating human trafficking through prosecutions like State of Utah v. Rax targeting gang-related activities and addressing the opioid epidemic via multistate settlements.^[64][6] Reyes joined amicus efforts in Murthy v. Missouri, challenging federal social media censorship, and initiated lawsuits against pharmacy benefit managers like UnitedHealth Group and Express Scripts for allegedly fueling opioid overprescribing.^[65][66] His office secured opioid-related recoveries but drew criticism for opacity in records and alleged involvement in shielding Operation Underground Railroad from scrutiny amid founder Tim Ballard's misconduct claims, including a 2025 state audit highlighting transparency deficits.^[67][68] Derek Brown, elected in November 2024 and inaugurated in January 2025, previously chaired the Utah Republican Party and committed to enhancing office transparency post-Reyes controversies.^[49] Early in his term, Brown filed a consumer protection suit against Snap Inc. in June 2025, alleging harms from Snapchat features, and continued opioid litigation by dismissing firm Motley Rice over ethical concerns in October 2025.^[69][70] His office pursued forgery charges against 11 defendants in signature-gathering schemes in March 2025 and supported challenges to federal policies, including executive actions on birthright citizenship.^[71][8]

Major Initiatives and Impacts

Public Safety and Consumer Protection Efforts

The Utah Attorney General's Office has coordinated multi-agency efforts to bolster public safety, including the Utah Child Abduction Response Team (CART), which mobilizes 1.62 full-time equivalent law enforcement officers and support personnel from 25 agencies for rapid identification and response to child abductions.^[72] The office also oversees the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force, conducting public trainings on internet safety and the task force's role in investigating online exploitation of minors.^[73] In firearms education, the office supports the Utah Firearms Safety and Violence Prevention Program, delivering lesson plans to public school students in grades 5 through 12 to foster knowledge, habits, and skills for safe handling and violence prevention.^[74] Addressing the opioid epidemic, the Attorney General participates in the Utah Opioid Task Force, contributing to the 2022 Utah Opioid Crisis Response Blueprint, which outlines goals to maximize community benefits from settlements and mitigate opioid harms through subject matter experts on the Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee.^[75] Public safety training initiatives include partnerships with Crisis Intervention Team Utah for de-escalation modules aimed at law enforcement and risk management groups.^[76] Under former Attorney General Sean Reyes, the office collaborated with Operation Underground Railroad on human trafficking extractions involving former special operations personnel, though subsequent audits raised questions about resource allocation and transparency in these partnerships.^[77][45] In consumer protection, the office enforces statutes against fraud and deception, including allocation of $30,100 in 2025 to the Criminal Division for implementing residential solar panel amendments that safeguard buyers from misleading sales practices.^[78] Attorney General Derek Brown has pursued antitrust actions, such as joining the Federal Trade Commission in 2025 efforts to hold Live Nation and Ticketmaster accountable for practices harming Utah consumers through inflated fees and limited access.^[79] The office supports the Utah Consumer Privacy Act, effective December 31, 2023, which empowers residents to control personal data collection, deletion, and opt-outs from sales by businesses meeting revenue thresholds.^[80] Brown's administration terminated a contract in October 2025 with a law firm involved in contingency-fee consumer protection suits, citing ethical concerns that such arrangements had devolved into mechanisms for funneling funds to political allies rather than prioritizing impartial enforcement.^[81] The Attorney General joined 40 other states in March 2025 to defend Federal Communications Commission rules barring telemarketers from selling consumer phone numbers to robocallers without consent, aiming to curb invasive calls.^[82] Additionally, the office contributes to a 2025 task force with the Division of Consumer Protection and Professional Licensing to investigate residential construction fraud, focusing on builder accountability and homeowner remedies.^[83] These efforts emphasize proactive education and enforcement to maintain trust in Utah's commercial environment.^[84]

Interstate and Federal Challenges

The Utah Attorney General's office has engaged in significant federal challenges, primarily targeting perceived overreach by the federal government in land management and regulatory policies. A prominent example is the August 20, 2024, lawsuit filed directly with the U.S. Supreme Court under Attorney General Sean Reyes, seeking to terminate federal control over 18.5 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered public lands in Utah.^[85] The suit argued that the federal government's retention of these lands, which constitute about a third of Utah's territory, exceeds constitutional authority under the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3) and violates the equal footing doctrine by denying the state full sovereignty upon admission to the Union in 1896.^{[85] [86]} The case, titled Utah v. United States, emphasized that initial federal retention for disposal purposes does not justify indefinite holding without congressional disposal, a position supported by 12 other states including Idaho and Wyoming through amicus briefs.^[87] The Supreme Court declined to exercise original jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint on January 13, 2025, without opinion, leaving the lands under federal control.^{[86] [88]} Interstate dimensions of these efforts include collaborative multistate litigation led or joined by Utah attorneys general, often through Republican-led coalitions challenging federal executive actions. The office's 2024 Annual Report documents participation in multiple such suits addressing federal overreach in environmental regulations, immigration enforcement, and other domains, recovering settlements and influencing policy reversals.^[3] For instance, Utah joined 17 states in a 2025 challenge to federal Section 504 regulations under the Rehabilitation Act, contesting expansions of accommodations that the states argued impose undue burdens without clear statutory basis.^[89] Under incoming Attorney General Derek Brown, who took office in January 2025, the office has continued these interstate partnerships, including endorsements of executive actions challenging federal interpretations of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause to limit birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens.^{[49] [8]} These actions reflect a broader strategy prioritizing state sovereignty against federal policies viewed as infringing on local resource management and economic interests, though critics from environmental organizations have contested their legal foundations and initiated counter-suits alleging violations of Utah's own constitutional processes for pursuing federal claims.^{[90] [91]} Despite setbacks like the Supreme Court's rejection, the office maintains that such challenges preserve access for recreation, infrastructure, and hazard mitigation on these lands.^[92]

Controversies and Criticisms

Historical Scandals

The most prominent historical scandal involving the Utah Attorney General's office centered on Mark Shurtleff and his successor John Swallow, who faced federal and state charges of bribery, corruption, and related offenses in July 2014.^[93] Prosecutors alleged that Shurtleff, who served from 2000 to 2013, and Swallow, who held office briefly from 2013 until his resignation amid the probe, accepted cash, gifts, and favors—including luxury trips and loans—from donors in exchange for influencing regulatory decisions and providing legal protections for business interests. Key figures included businessman Marc Jenson, whose complaints initiated the investigation, claiming involvement in a scheme to secure favorable treatment from the office, though Jenson invoked the Fifth Amendment and declined to testify in court. Shurtleff faced six felony counts, including bribery and evidence tampering, but all charges were dismissed in July 2016 following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McDonnell v. United States that narrowed the definition of official acts qualifying as bribery, rendering the prosecution's case untenable under the revised legal standard.^[94] Swallow proceeded to trial on nine counts, including bribery and obstruction of justice, but was acquitted by a jury in March 2017 after a four-week proceeding that highlighted insufficient evidence of a quid pro quo arrangement beyond routine political interactions. The cases stemmed from a broader FBI investigation into pay-to-play dynamics, where donors allegedly sought assistance in quashing investigations or advancing ventures like mortgage fraud defenses and energy projects, though no convictions resulted, underscoring challenges in proving corrupt intent amid Utah's insular political and business networks.^[95] The scandals eroded public trust in the office, prompting legislative reforms such as enhanced ethics training and donation disclosure requirements for state officials, and contributed to a narrative of repeated turmoil in Utah's top prosecutorial role.^[96] Prior to Shurtleff and Swallow, no comparable high-profile corruption cases involving Utah Attorneys General are documented in public records, with earlier officeholders like Vernon B. Romney (1969–1977) maintaining reputations focused on routine legal duties without noted ethical breaches.^[4] The absence of convictions did not fully dispel perceptions of impropriety, as subsequent audits and media scrutiny revealed patterns of undisclosed gifts and conflicts, influencing voter skepticism in AG elections through the 2020s.^[97]

Recent Ethical and Transparency Issues

A legislative audit released on January 31, 2025, criticized former Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes for lacking transparency in his office operations and creating perceived conflicts of interest, particularly through his close ties to Operation Underground Railroad (OUR), a nonprofit anti-trafficking organization founded by Tim Ballard. The audit found that Reyes "leveraged his position" to promote OUR by conducting official business from a private barbershop associated with the group, withholding, modifying, and hiding information from auditors and the public, and resisting requests for full records over a year-long investigation.^[45][67][5] These issues compounded earlier controversies, including Reyes' December 2023 decision not to seek re-election amid scrutiny over campaign spending linked to Ballard and OUR, as well as allegations of improper involvement in private sector promotions using his office's authority.^[98] In December 2023, a federal judge rebuked Reyes' office for "haphazard record-keeping" in a case involving opioid litigation, noting incomplete and disorganized public records that hindered oversight and transparency. Additionally, Reyes faced an ethics complaint in September 2022 from The 65 Project, accusing him of using his official platform to amplify unsubstantiated claims of 2020 presidential election fraud on behalf of former President Donald Trump, though no formal disciplinary action resulted from the complaint. These incidents contributed to broader public distrust, with candidates in the 2024 attorney general race, including eventual winner Derek Brown, emphasizing the need to rebuild trust through enhanced accountability during debates on October 1, 2024.^{[99][100][101]} Following his inauguration on January 6, 2025, incoming Attorney General Derek Brown pledged to address these transparency deficits by establishing an internal ethics committee to enforce a "gold standard" of accountability and reviewing ongoing contracts for potential conflicts. In October 2025, Brown's office terminated its contract with the law firm Motley Rice, citing ethical concerns including "double-dipping" representations of multiple parties in overlapping cases and prior disqualification motions related to conflicts of interest in state litigation. While no major ethical allegations have surfaced against Brown himself as of October 2025, his prior lobbying work for Facebook drew campaign scrutiny from opponents like Rachel Terry, who alleged potential future conflicts in tech-related enforcement, though Brown maintained such experience would enhance impartial decision-making.^{[102][103][104]}