## Facts

- The University of Utah, a public institution created under the Utah Constitution and statutes, maintained a long-standing policy prohibiting students, faculty, and staff from possessing firearms on campus.
- In 2001, the Utah Attorney General issued an opinion indicating certain state-agency firearms restrictions violated Utah law, prompting the University to seek judicial clarification about its own policy.
- During the litigation, the Legislature enacted Utah Code § 63-98-102 (later recodified), broadly preempting firearms regulation by state and local entities.
- The statute barred any covered entity from adopting or enforcing any rule or policy that “in any way inhibits or restricts” firearm possession or use on public or private property.
- The statute’s definition of covered “local authority” expressly included state institutions of higher education, creating a direct conflict with the University’s campus firearms ban.
- The University sought (1) a declaration that its policy did not conflict with state law, or (2) alternatively, that the Utah Constitution granted it institutional autonomy to enforce the policy despite contrary statutes.

## Issues

1. Whether article X, section 4 of the Utah Constitution makes the University of Utah an autonomous constitutional entity with authority to disregard conflicting state statutes affecting asserted “internal academic affairs.”
2. If not, whether Utah Code § 63-98-102 preempts and invalidates the University’s campus firearms prohibition.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the University.
- The court held that the University is not an autonomous constitutional entity empowered to disregard state statutes.
- Article X, section 4 does not grant a judicially enforceable sphere of institutional autonomy that overrides legislative enactments.
- Because § 63-98-102 preempts firearms restrictions by state institutions of higher education, the University’s firearms policy could not be enforced to the extent it conflicted with the statute.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional language assigning the Legislature “general control and supervision” over higher education supports legislative supremacy over university governance, absent an express constitutional carve-out.
- A public university’s regulatory authority is derived from statute and delegated governance structures (including a statewide board), and remains subject to legislative revision and override.
- Clauses confirming existing university “rights, immunities, franchises, and endowments” preserve preexisting interests but do not create independent constitutional sovereignty for institutional policy-making.
- Broad firearms preemption statutes may lawfully bar state universities from adopting policies that restrict firearm possession, when the Legislature expressly includes higher education institutions within the statute’s scope.
- Policy arguments about institutional “academic freedom” do not, without constitutional text or history, supply authority for a university to disregard a valid statute.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court held that the University of Utah must comply with statewide firearms preemption because the Utah Constitution does not grant the University institutional autonomy to override conflicting legislative enactments.


University of Utah v. Shurtleff, 144 P.3d 1109 (Utah 2006)