Third District Judge John Nielsen speaks during the announcement of his appointment to the Utah Supreme Court. (Alixel Cabrera/Utah News Dispatch)
Gov. Spencer Cox announced his new Utah Supreme Court Justice pick to replace outgoing Associate Chief Justice John Peace on the bench. Third District Judge John Nielsen now awaits confirmation from the Utah Senate to join the high court.
Cox said that after reviewing dozens of applications, hours of interviews exploring the candidates’ judicial philosophy and temperament, and examining many of their arguments and decisions, he’s confident in his choice.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The governor appointed Nielsen to the 3rd District Court in September 2024 after his work in different private ventures — including a joint firm with former Utah Associate Chief Justice Thomas Lee, Sen. Mike Lee’s brother. Nielsen also worked 11 years as solicitor general in the Utah Attorney General’s Office, and years as an adjunct associate professor at the University of Utah.
Before taking the district court judgeship, Nielsen and Lee’s law firm was hired by then-Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes to represent the state against a lawsuit challenging Utah’s transgender students sports ban, according to KUTV, a contract that became effective hours after Lee retired from the Utah Supreme Court and days after Nielsen resigned from the Attorney General’s Office.
“When you read anything written by Judge Nielsen, whether as a judge or as an attorney in the private sector, what we will soon find is that he is absolutely brilliant,” Cox said in a news conference at the state Capitol. “He’s one of the smartest people that I’ve ever interviewed.”
Chief Justice Matthew Durrant praised the state’s rigorous selection process, arguing that Pearce, who’s retiring on Dec. 1, is evidence of how good the system is. Nielsen is also “a strong testament” to the strength of the judicial selection process, Durrant added.
Third District Judge John Nielsen and Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Durrant during the announcement of Nielsen’s appointment to the Utah Supreme Court. (Alixel Cabrera/Utah News Dispatch)
“I have been on the Supreme Court for 25 years now. For a good chunk of those years, I had a chance to see John Nielsen regularly argue before our court,” Durrant said. “And in those 25 years, I have never seen a better oral and written advocate. His writing has always been impeccable, honest, to the point.”
Nielsen said his judicial philosophy is “textualist” and “originalist,” saying that essentially means “trying to ensure that your interpretation fits with the intent of the law. In the case of statute, textualism, the will of the Legislature. In the case of the Constitution, the will of the people.”
That was an important factor in Cox’s selection, he said.
“There’s a right way and a less appropriate way to decide cases and to interpret those laws,” Cox said. “And I feel very strongly that a textualist and originalist approach is the only way to anchor our system in a way that doesn’t lead to eventual chaos. Judges are not supposed to write laws or make up laws. That is the role of the legislative branch.”
Also, Cox said, now that the state is growing, district judges have had to take on larger workloads with little time. It’s something that Nielsen has proven to be able to do, Cox said.
During the 2025 legislative session, some lawmakers criticized the Utah Supreme Court as “woefully unproductive,” pointing to the number of opinions issued in 2023 and 2022 in comparison to other states. A director of communications for the Utah State Courts disputed that representation, arguing that “comparing volumes of published opinions between states is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Different courts have different structures and publish different things.”
Former Utah House Majority Leader Jefferson Moss said he was looking to expand the five-member Utah Supreme Court over “growing caseloads, delays, and evolving legal complexities in Utah’s highest court.”
Moss opened a bill file but, with little time left in the session, the proposal ultimately was never discussed
Cox said that’s something he has been thinking about lately because of the growing caseload in the state courts.
“It’s not because of our court members. It’s just because of the sheer caseload,” Cox said. “And so I think it’s worth exploring how we get them additional resources that they might need.”
