Federal panel denies bid to overturn Utah's court-ordered congressional map

Ruling leaves no time for additional litigation before 2026 elections, unless lawmakers move deadline again

Published on Feb. 24, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A three-judge U.S. District Court panel denied a bid by two Republican congress members to overturn Utah's new court-ordered congressional map, affirming a state judge's power to set new boundaries after determining the legislature's 2021 map was unconstitutional. The federal ruling means Utah's new map, which creates one Democratic district and three Republican districts, will govern the 2026 elections unless lawmakers push back filing deadlines again.

Why it matters

This case concerns the balance of power between state courts and legislatures in setting congressional district boundaries, an issue of lasting importance beyond any single election cycle. The ruling is a victory for anti-gerrymandering groups who have fought for years to implement a fairer redistricting process in Utah.

The details

In 2024, 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson determined the Utah Legislature's 2021 congressional map was 'unlawful' and unconstitutional, and she selected a new map proposed by plaintiffs in a redistricting lawsuit. Two Republican congress members challenged Gibson's court-ordered map in federal court, but the three-judge panel unanimously denied their bid to overturn it.

  • In July 2024, the Utah Supreme Court remanded the state case back to Gibson's courtroom.
  • In January 2025, Gibson held a hearing on summary judgement.
  • On November 10, 2025, Gibson struck down the Legislature's preferred map and selected the plaintiffs' map.
  • On February 24, 2026, the federal panel denied the bid to overturn Utah's court-ordered map.

The players

Dianna Gibson

A 3rd District Judge in Utah who determined the legislature's 2021 congressional map was unconstitutional and selected a new court-ordered map.

Celeste Maloy

A Republican congress member who was a plaintiff in the federal case challenging Utah's court-ordered map.

Burgess Owens

A Republican congress member who was a plaintiff in the federal case challenging Utah's court-ordered map.

Better Boundaries

An anti-gerrymandering group that sponsored Proposition 4, a voter-approved ballot initiative that created an independent redistricting process in Utah.

Elizabeth Rasmussen

The executive director of Better Boundaries.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“This case concerns the Constitution's allocation of authority over federal elections, a question of lasting importance beyond any single election cycle. Having these issues heard has strengthened public understanding and clarified what is at stake. We remain convinced that the Constitution assigns this responsibility to the State's lawmaking authority and that this principle is essential to preserving constitutional order and the rule of law.”

— Celeste Maloy and Burgess Owens, Republican congress members (Instagram)

“Today's federal ruling is once again a win for the majority of Utah voters who approved Prop 4 in 2018. While discussions about representation and redistricting will likely continue, this decision provides greater certainty that power is derived from the people. Utahns can now prepare for future elections and the opportunity to have their voices heard. Voters should choose their politicians, not the other way around.”

— Elizabeth Rasmussen, Executive Director, Better Boundaries (News release)

“Utah voters should not have to navigate uncertainty to participate in their elections. We are pleased the court protected this fair map and we remain focused on protecting voters' ability to make their voices heard. We only wish that the futile attempts to undermine this fair map would cease so we could focus on what is important to Utahns.”

— Katharine Biele, President, League of Women Voters of Utah (Statement)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Walker Reed Quinn out on bail.

The takeaway

This case highlights growing concerns in the community about repeat offenders released on bail, raising questions about bail reform, public safety on SF streets, and if any special laws to govern autonomous vehicles in residential and commercial areas.