Utah Supreme Court weighs whether Rule 65B can block Grantsville annexations in IRTA dispute

The Utah Supreme Court heard oral argument in IRTA Community Association v. Baugh over whether petitioners may use Rule 65B to challenge Grantsville’s annexation of land petitioners say amounts to roughly one‑third of ERDA’s territory and whether other remedies offer an adequate avenue for relief.

Petitioners’ counsel Janet Conway told the court the annexation sequence—notice of intent filed in August 2020, recorder certification in December 2021, a Tooele County Boundary Commission review in May 2022, and a Grantsville ordinance in October 2022—left petitioners with “a genuine urgency … to get relief” because the Lieutenant Governor faces a statutory 10‑day deadline to certify or reject pending boundary notices. Conway argued that, given district courts had dismissed earlier statutory‑standing claims and the time‑sensitive certification window, an extraordinary Rule 65B petition was appropriate to prevent a certification that would be irreversible once made.

The respondent, represented by Robert Mansfield, urged the court to affirm the district court’s dismissal. Mansfield said Rule 65B is aimed at compelling non‑discretionary duties and “is not for general review of a decision” or a vehicle to circumvent statutory standing requirements. He argued petitioners had other statutory remedies and that questions about compliance with the annexation code are primarily statutory issues that should be litigated under the annexation code or through the district court process the Court of Appeals directed—rather than through an original‑jurisdiction 65B remedy.

Much of the argument focused on whether petitioners lacked statutory standing to raise compliance claims and whether that lack of standing could be remedied by invoking Rule 65B. Conway emphasized the Court of Appeals left open the possibility—on remand—to press statutory‑compliance claims under Rule 65B; Mansfield countered that allowing Rule 65B to override statutory limitations would “completely undo” the legislature’s scheme identifying who may challenge annexations.

Justices pressed both sides on procedural posture and overlapping litigation. One justice asked why petitioners had not appealed prior district‑court rulings; Conway said some earlier judges found ripeness concerns and that the boundary‑commission process might resolve those matters. The panel also probed whether a favorable decision in one annexation would bind others given the parties said the annexations involved different land areas and proceeded under different versions of the annexation code amended several times in 2020–2022.

On constitutional claims, respondents urged the court to avoid reaching constitutional questions if non‑constitutional remedies exist. Mansfield and other counsel argued that claims alleging unconstitutionality could be pursued through declaratory‑judgment proceedings in district court if appropriate, while petitioners relied on the court’s broader constitutional authority—invoking Article 8, Section 5—to provide extraordinary relief in the face of imminent certification by the Lieutenant Governor.

The court heard detailed argument about precedent and the proper scope of Rule 65B, the role and limits of the Tooele County Boundary Commission, and whether ERDA and other parties had pursued the statutory appeals available to them. After probing both sides, the justices took the matter under advisement and recessed.

The court’s eventual decision will address whether Rule 65B can be used to challenge compliance with the annexation code in these circumstances and whether petitioners had or exhausted adequate alternative remedies.