Fuja v. Stephens

Utah residents Tannin and Megan Fuja sued city building official Corbett Stephens for fraudulently performing his duties. During their case, the Utah Court of Appeals issued a decision interpreting the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (UGIA) to bar damages suits against public officials even when they commit intentional wrongs. That decision upended a pillar of Utah law that has existed since the state’s founding: the rule that public officials are not immune from damages suits when they intentionally violate the law in the performance of their duties.

As a result of that decision, the Utah Court of Appeals dismissed the Fujas’ case, reasoning that Mr. Stephens was immune. The Fujas, then representing themselves, filed a petition for review in the Utah Supreme Court to challenge the dismissal, and Mr. Stephens filed a response.

The ACLU and the ACLU of Utah are now representing the Fujas. As the Fujas’ counsel, we filed a reply to Mr. Stephens’ response in the Utah Supreme Court. The reply argues that the Court of Appeals’ novel interpretation of the UGIA clashes with the UGIA’s text, case law, and the Utah Constitution, including the Open Courts Clause. The Utah Supreme Court should grant review to restore the foundational rule that government officials are not entitled to immunity from damages suits when they commit intentional wrongs.

The Utah Supreme Court will now consider whether to grant the Fujas’ petition and hear the case.