## Facts

- The Utah Legislature enacted Senate Bill 2 (2008), titled “Minimum School Program Budget Amendments,” an omnibus measure with numerous education-related appropriations and substantive provisions.
- The bill consolidated multiple education measures, including some proposals that had failed as separate bills during the legislative process.
- Individual plaintiffs—including current and former legislators, public officials, and citizens—sued state executive officials in their official capacities seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, costs, and attorney’s fees.
- Plaintiffs alleged the bill violated Utah Constitution article VI, section 22 by containing more than one subject and by failing to clearly express its subject in the title.
- Plaintiffs also alleged the bill violated Utah Constitution article X, section 3 by assigning certain education-related functions to non-Board entities (including administration of a teacher salary supplement program and aspects of textbook approval).
- The district court dismissed the article VI claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and granted summary judgment to the State on the article X claims.
- On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court raised standing sua sponte and required supplemental briefing.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs had traditional standing or public-interest standing to assert single-subject and clear-title challenges under Utah Constitution article VI, section 22.
2. Whether the plaintiffs had traditional standing or public-interest standing to assert education-governance claims under Utah Constitution article X, section 3.
3. Whether the complaint stated a claim that Senate Bill 2 violated the single-subject and clear-title requirements of article VI, section 22.

## Decision

- The court held plaintiffs lacked traditional, injury-based standing for the article VI claims but granted public-interest standing because the claims concerned structural limits on legislative power and otherwise would likely evade review.
- The court held plaintiffs lacked standing—traditional or public-interest—to bring the article X claims and vacated summary judgment on those claims, remanding with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- On the merits, the court affirmed dismissal of the article VI claims under Rule 12(b)(6), holding Senate Bill 2 complied with both the single-subject and clear-title requirements.
- Disposition: article VI dismissal affirmed; article X summary judgment vacated and remanded for dismissal for lack of standing.

## Legal Principles

- Standing is jurisdictional and may be considered by an appellate court on its own motion.
- Traditional standing requires a concrete, particularized injury; generalized disagreement with governmental action is insufficient.
- Public-interest standing may be granted when (1) the dispute presents issues of significant public importance and (2) there is no effective and adequate alternative method to obtain judicial review.
- Public-interest standing is more likely for claims alleging violations of structural constitutional constraints, especially where no plaintiff is likely to have a personal stake sufficient to sue.
- Under Utah Constitution article VI, section 22, a bill satisfies the single-subject rule if its provisions are reasonably germane to a common general purpose, construed at a broad level of generality.
- The clear-title rule requires fair notice of the bill’s general subject; a title need not catalog every provision if it reasonably apprises legislators and the public of the bill’s subject.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court permitted public-interest standing for a constitutional challenge to omnibus legislation under the single-subject and clear-title clause, but required dismissal of education-clause governance claims for lack of standing, and it upheld the challenged education budget bill as consistent with article VI, section 22.


Gregory v. Shurtleff, 299 P.3d 1098 (Utah 2013)