Planned Parenthood is asking the Utah Supreme Court to sideline Justice John J. Nielsen from an upcoming hearing on the state’s near-total abortion law, arguing that his past legal work on the issue makes him look anything but neutral. Nielsen, who joined the high court in 2025, previously worked on briefs and appeals in litigation tied to the abortion ban, according to the nonprofit. If the court signs off on the request, Nielsen would be removed from the panel that hears arguments and the lineup of justices deciding the case could shift.
As detailed in a filing described by The Salt Lake Tribune, Planned Parenthood is asking the court to bar Nielsen from taking part in the next hearing over the challenge to SB 174. The organization says Nielsen’s earlier participation in pro-life advocacy, specifically his work for a group called Pro Life Utah, undercuts the appearance that he can approach the case with an open mind. The motion urges the court to sort out the potential conflict before anyone steps up to the lectern for oral arguments.
Public court records show that Nielsen co-authored an amicus brief for Pro Life Utah in earlier litigation over SB 174. That participation is recorded in a 2024 Utah Supreme Court opinion. The opinion, posted by the Utah Attorney General's Office, lists Nielsen among the lawyers representing Pro Life Utah. Planned Parenthood’s motion points to those filings as the factual backbone of its recusal push.
Why recusal matters
Utah’s judicial conduct rules say judges "shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Appellate justices can also notify the parties and seek waivers, according to Utah Courts. The idea is straightforward: keep public confidence in the courts intact and avoid even the hint of bias in cases that everyone is watching.
What comes next
The Utah Supreme Court now has to decide whether Nielsen should step aside before the justices hear arguments. Nielsen was appointed to the court by Gov. Spencer J. Cox in October 2025, after serving on the Third District Court. His move to the high court is part of a broader reshaping of Utah’s judiciary. His appointment is noted in a release from Gov. Cox’s office.
Where this fits in the wider fight
Planned Parenthood’s challenge to SB 174, a near-total ban that criminalizes most abortions, has been winding through Utah’s courts since 2023. The case has become one of the state’s most consequential legal fights over reproductive rights. The Utah Supreme Court’s 2024 opinion in the dispute and the record of amicus filings lay out the procedural history and the law’s narrow exceptions. Those records appear in the official court opinion posted by the Utah Attorney General's Office.
Legal implications
Recusal battles over a judge’s past advocacy can drag on and, in closely divided cases, can shape which issues ever get a full hearing on the merits. Planned Parenthood’s filing, as reported by The Salt Lake Tribune, argues that the appearance of bias alone makes Nielsen’s participation inappropriate. The way the court rules could influence both the timing and the makeup of the panel that ultimately decides the fate of SB 174.
The Supreme Court has not issued a public response to the filing, and both the parties and the public are watching to see whether Nielsen takes the bench for the upcoming argument. This story will be updated as the court rules and the case moves forward.
