Sign up for Executive Dysfunction, a newsletter that highlights one under-the-radar story each week about how Trump is changing the law—or how the law is pushing back. You’ll also receive updates on the latest from Slate’s Jurisprudence team.

Anti-abortion groups have had their share of trouble since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, even in red-state courts in places like Tennessee, Wyoming, Montana, and Utah. But instead of reversing course or postponing bold action until the midterms, some Republicans are looking to change the way courts themselves do business. That’s a recent lesson coming out of Utah and Tennessee.

In a Utah suit filed in 2022, Planned Parenthood argued that the state’s abortion ban violates more than one part of its constitution. In 2024, the Utah Supreme Court blocked enforcement of the criminal law. The case then went back to a trial court for further proceedings.

For Republicans, it seemed that the writing was on the wall. The Utah Supreme Court would probably strike down the law when the case was before it again down the line. Unhappy with that prospect, Utah Republicans passed a new law changing which judges will hear the case. Under the bill, any time the state is sued, including in constitutional challenges like the Planned Parenthood case, the state will have the choice to remove the case from the judge hearing it to a brand new three-judge panel, even after the original judge in the case had issued a ruling.

Republicans’ justification for the law is rich. They say the problem is with judge-shopping on the other side: Parties like Planned Parenthood in theory seek out a sympathetic court to argue their case in the first instance. In Utah, that means filing suit in Salt Lake City, which tends to be more liberal. The three-judge law requires that the panel hearing a case include judges from different parts of the state.

It’s almost certainly true that Planned Parenthood, like any plaintiff, was strategic about where it filed its suit, but it’s no coincidence that this was the case that moved conservatives in the state to act. If they couldn’t defend their law in court, Republicans could at least buy time before an adverse ruling came down—or even wait until the composition of the Utah Supreme Court itself changed.

And if........

© Slate