Some Utah legislators, opposed to what they consider judicial legislation from the bench, want a state constitutional amendment saying that no state court could ever order the Legislature to spend money.

Rep. Greg Hughes, R-Draper, says to his knowledge the Utah Supreme Court — where such an order would likely end up — has never ordered the Legislature to spend a specific amount of money on any program.

"But in Kansas recently, that state's court ordered their Legislature to spend more money on education," says Hughes. "We want to make sure nothing like that could happen here."

The Utah House and Senate hold the purse strings to state government, a constitutional responsibility that must jealously be guarded, said Hughes.

"My amendment only speaks about appropriations," he added. "If we could find some way to stop legislating (making new law) from the bench, that would be great. But I don't go there with this."

Conservatives throughout the nation have been complaining for some time about court decisions they claim have no basis in either the U.S. or specific state constitutions.

That current fight will play itself out at the highest level when the U.S. Senate goes through the confirmation process for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, an federal appeals court justice.

The five-member Utah Supreme Court is not known for any radical agenda or stretch-of-the-imagination decisions.

Chief Justice Christine Durham declined to comment on Hughes' proposal, referring the Deseret Morning News instead to Assistant Court Administrator Richard Schwermer, who often represents the judicial branch of government before the Legislature.

Schwermer said he had not heard about Hughes' proposed amendment, which has not yet been filed.

"If the Legislature seeks to change how the courts are administered, we often give input" on those bills or amendments, he said.

"But if it simply is a matter of law — changing this or that statute — we leave it to the Legislature."

Schwermer said he couldn't remember a case where the Utah high court ordered the Legislature to spend money on a specific program.

"There are often cases, most often decided through consent decrees, where a state agency agrees to do something — and that may cost some money," he said.

One recent example is where the state's child foster care agency has spent more than $50 million upgrading its foster care program as a result of a federal court suit brought by a San Francisco-based child advocacy group.

At times a court orders the state, usually the Tax Commission, to do something with money — like rebate taxes improperly collected. And there are times when a state court may order a local government to pay off some kind of civil claim, and what could result in a local property tax increase.