University of Utah v. Shurtleff
| Decision Date | 08 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 20030877.,20030877. |
| Citation | 144 P.3d 1109,2006 UT 51 |
| Parties | UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, a body corporate and politic under Utah law, and Michael K. Young, President of the University of Utah, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. Mark L. SHURTLEFF, Utah Attorney General, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Alan L. Sullivan, Todd M. Shaughnessy, Amy F. Sorenson, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs.
Mark L. Shurtleff, Att'y Gen., Brent A. Burnett, Asst. Att'y Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant.
M. Gay Taylor, Robert H. Rees, Chris Parker, Salt Lake City, for amicus State Legislature.
¶ 1 For many years, the University of Utah has enforced a policy prohibiting its students, faculty, and staff from possessing firearms on campus. During its 2004 General Session, the Utah Legislature passed Utah Code section 63-98-102, a statute prohibiting state and local entities from enacting or enforcing any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy that in "any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property." The conflict between the University's policy and section 63-98-102 requires that we assess the relative authority of the University and the legislature to regulate firearms on the University's campus.
¶ 2 Relying on article X, section 4 of the Utah Constitution, the University maintains that it is an autonomous constitutional entity with the authority to disregard Utah law that interferes with its internal academic affairs and that section 63-98-102 constitutes such a law. In contrast, the Attorney General maintains that the University has no power or autonomy under the constitution that would permit it to disregard state law. We agree with the Attorney General. Indeed, the University's claim is unsupported by the text of our state's constitution, its historical context, or the prior decisions of this court.
¶ 3 The University is a public university established by Utah's constitution and statutes. Over 44,000 students, faculty, and staff comprise the University community. The main campus includes not only the requisite classrooms and offices but also an assortment of facilities ranging from an extensive health sciences complex to a preschool. In addition, it includes facilities frequented by guests of the University, such as a 46,000-seat football stadium, a 15,000-seat indoor arena, and cultural and entertainment centers.
¶ 4 Utah's Enabling Act requires the University to "forever remain under the exclusive control of" the State of Utah. Act of July 16, 1894, ch. 138, 28 Stat. 107, 110. To that end, the Utah Legislature created the Utah State Board of Regents, which has authority to "enact regulations governing the conduct of university and college students, faculty, and employees." Utah Code Ann. § 53B-3-103(1) (Supp.2004). The board of regents has, in turn, enacted regulations giving the University's president the responsibility to maintain a safe and orderly campus, as well as the authority to issue policies aimed at ensuring the safety and security of people and property on the University's campus. The legislature also has authorized the University's president to exercise authority delegated by the board of regents, as well as other "necessary and proper ... powers" not denied the University "by the [board of regents] or by law," to run the University efficiently and effectively. Id. § 53B-2-106(1) (2000). The University enforces its regulations pursuant to those grants of power. Id. § 76-8-708(1) (2003).
¶ 5 One of the regulations enacted by the University is a firearms policy. The policy, which prohibits students, faculty, and staff from carrying guns on campus and "while conducting University business off campus," authorizes disciplinary action for violations. Numerous University administrative bodies endorse the policy, and those responsible for campus safety view it as a success.
¶ 6 The University's firearms policy became the subject of heated debate in 2001, when Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff issued Opinion No. 01-002, in which he opined that a Utah Department of Human Resource Management rule forbidding state employees to carry guns in state facilities violated Utah's Uniform Firearms Act. In footnote thirteen to that opinion, the Attorney General expressed his agreement with the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel's Formal Opinion 98-01, which had concluded that the University's firearms policy was contrary to the Uniform Firearms Act. After issuing Opinion No. 01-002, the Attorney General reiterated on numerous occasions his view regarding the illegality of the University's firearms policy.
¶ 7 In response, the University sued the Attorney General in the United States District Court for the District of Utah ("federal court"), seeking a declaration that Utah law does not prevent it from enforcing its firearms policy and that any interference with the policy would violate its right to academic freedom as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Attorney General moved for judgment on the pleadings. The University, in turn, moved for summary judgment.
¶ 8 Because the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution immunizes the Attorney General from suits under state law in federal court, the federal court found that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the University's state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. It also invoked the federal Pullman abstention doctrine, declining to consider the University's federal constitutional claims until a court with proper jurisdiction decided the University's state law claims. See R.R. Comm'n v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941). The federal court directed the University to seek adjudication of its state law claims in state court and, pursuant to Pullman, retained jurisdiction over the federal claims.
¶ 9 The University then sued the Attorney General in Utah state court, seeking a declaration that its firearms policy was contrary to neither the Uniform Firearms Act, id. §§ 76-10-500 to -530 (2003), nor the Concealed Weapon Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 53-5-701 to -711 (2002). In the alternative, the University sought a declaration that article X, section 4 of the Utah Constitution guaranteed it institutional autonomy over firearms regulation, thereby allowing it to continue to enforce its firearms policy in spite of any contrary Utah law. The Attorney General moved to dismiss the University's suit, and the University countered with a motion for summary judgment.
¶ 10 The district court denied the Attorney General's motion to dismiss and granted the University's motion for summary judgment, holding that the University's firearms policy was not contrary to Utah law. The court reasoned that the Uniform Firearms Act merely "established uniform criminal penalties for" those who violated Utah's firearms laws and that the Concealed Weapon Act merely "addressed the validity of a concealed weapons permit, the circumstances under which one must be issued, and the circumstances under which a valid permit holder may nevertheless be subject to criminal prosecution for possession of a concealed weapon." It concluded that the University's firearms policy was not inconsistent with either of these statutes because the policy applied only to students, faculty, and staff who voluntarily chose to associate themselves with the University.1 The district court's conclusion that the University's firearms policy was consistent with Utah statutory law obviated the need for it to address the University's claimed right to institutional autonomy under article X, section 4 of the Utah Constitution.
¶ 11 The Attorney General appealed. Shortly after he filed his initial brief, the legislature passed Senate Bill 48, later codified at sections 63-98-101 to -102 of the Utah Code. See id. §§ 63-98-101 to -102 (2004). Section 63-98-102 provides, "Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property." Id. § 63-98-102(5). The statutory definition of the phrase "[l]ocal authority or state entity" includes "state institutions of higher education," such as the University. Id. § 63-98-102(6)(b). The passage of section 63-98-102 dramatically altered the legal landscape, rendering it clear that Utah's firearms statutes are universally applicable, rather than merely criminal in nature as the district court had concluded, and that the University's firearms policy does, in fact, violate Utah law.
¶ 12 Because the enactment of section 63-98-102 conclusively resolved the statutory interpretation issue in a manner contrary to the holding of the district court, both the University and the Attorney General suggested that the district court's decision on that point had been rendered moot, obviating the need for this court to review that issue. The parties further suggested that the University's constitutional claim, which the district court had not reached, was ripe for adjudication and should be addressed by this court. We agreed and directed the parties to proceed with briefing on the constitutional issue.
¶ 13 The University contends that section 63-98-102 is unconstitutional as applied to the University because the University enjoys institutional autonomy under article X, section 4 of the Utah Constitution. Consistent with that theory, the parties restricted their briefing in this court to the scope of the University's autonomy under article X, section 4 of the Utah Constitution.
¶ 14 During oral argument, we inquired as to whether article I, section 6 of the Utah Constitution was relevant to the University's claim of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S. Salt Lake City v. Maese
...of a statute, "we presume the statute to be constitutional, resolving any reasonable doubts in favor of constitutionality." Univ. of Utah v. Shurtleff , 2006 UT 51, ¶ 30, 144 P.3d 1109 (citation omitted).¶9 Before we reach that question, however, we need to address the City’s contention tha......
-
Carter v. Lehi City
...area over which that body has jurisdiction” or to everyone within a “category of persons engaged in a particular activity.” Univ. of Utah v. Shurtleff, 2006 UT 51, ¶ 25, 144 P.3d 1109.24 A “generally applicable rule,” in other words, sets the governing standard for all cases coming within i......
-
Cole v. Riley
...this Court will give words and phrases the same meaning they have in ordinary, everyday usage."). See also University of Utah v. Shurtleff, 144 P.3d 1109, 1117 (Utah 2006) ("The cardinal rule of constitutional interpretation is to begin with the plain language of the provision in Both the c......
-
Richards v. Cox
...to a statute, we presume the statute to be constitutional, resolving any reasonable doubts in favor of constitutionality." Univ. of Utah v. Shurtleff , 2006 UT 51, ¶ 30, 144 P.3d 1109. Additionally, other courts have held that if a constitutional provision is ambiguous, the legislature, as ......
-
Education Under Fire?: an Analysis of Campus Carry and University Autonomy in Georgia
...system exceeded its authority by regulating firearms because it was already preempted by state law); Univ. of Utah v. Shurtleff, 144 P.3d 1109, 1122 (Utah 2006) (holding that the university is subject to statutes at issue and was unable to enact policies regarding firearms).128. Colo. Const......
-
Hb 280 - Campus Carry
...Utah's campus carry law was upheld by the Utah Supreme Court. Univ. of Utah v. Shurtleff, 144 P.3d 1109, 1121-22 (Utah Sup.Ct. 2006).7. Guns on Campus: Overview, supra note 2. 8. Id. These states are Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin......
-
The Second Amendment Goes to College
...ing.pdf. 162. See Hemenway and Azrael, supra note 130, at 269. 163. Univ. of Utah v. Shurtleff, 144 P.3d 1109, 1121-22 (Utah 2006). 164. Id. at 1117. 165. Id. at 1121. 166. Id. at 1128. 167. Rebecca Rasmussen, Concealed Weapons Threaten Campus Safety, Daily Utah Chron., Sept. 28, 2010, 168.......
-
Article Celebrating Justice Durham: Mentor, Leader, Legacy
...dissented whenever she has concluded that the court strayed from our constitutional heritage. See, e.g., University of Utah v. Shurtleff, 144 P.3d 1109, 2006 UT 51, ¶¶ 59-75, (Durham, C.J., dissenting). In this and all of her work, and with all of her colleagues and counsel, she taught us (......