The Utah Supreme Court recently ruled on a significant case regarding the incorporation of a new town, West Hills, affecting local landowners' rights. In a decision filed on July 2, 2026, the court reversed a lower court ruling that had blocked the incorporation election. The ruling clarifies the rights of landowners in relation to municipal boundary changes and the process of town incorporation.
The case, McCaffrey v. Anderson, Case No. 20251357, centers around Derek Anderson, who sought to incorporate a new town along Highway 248, between Hideout and Kamas. The court's decision is crucial as it outlines the legal framework for how towns can be incorporated in Utah and the rights of landowners during this process.
Anderson's efforts to incorporate West Hills began in April 2023 when he filed a request for a feasibility study with the Lieutenant Governor's office. The incorporation process involves several steps, including public hearings and opportunities for landowners to opt out of the proposed boundaries. However, some landowners, who were added to the proposed map after the statutory deadline for opting out, argued that they were treated unfairly compared to their neighbors.
The landowners, including Jennifer McCaffrey and several others, filed a lawsuit to prevent the incorporation election, claiming that the incorporation code violated the Uniform Operation of Laws Clause of the Utah Constitution. They argued that the law discriminated against them by allowing some landowners to opt out while denying that right to others.
The district court sided with the landowners and ruled that the incorporation code's treatment of landowners was not reasonable and failed to meet the rational basis standard. The court found that the classification created by the code was arbitrary and not connected to a legitimate legislative purpose.
However, the Utah Supreme Court disagreed with the district court's analysis. The court ruled that the incorporation code's scheme did not violate the Uniform Operation of Laws Clause. Justice Nielsen, authoring the opinion, stated, "We hold that the incorporation code’s scheme of exclusion rights does not violate the Uniform Operation of Laws Clause." The court emphasized that there was a rational basis for the legislative classification, which was to prevent endless boundary modifications and ensure the incorporation process could move forward.
The ruling reinstates the Lieutenant Governor's certification of the incorporation petition, allowing the question of West Hills' incorporation to be placed on the ballot for the 2026 general election. This decision has significant implications for landowners in Utah, as it clarifies their rights and the legislative intent behind the incorporation process.
Moving forward, this ruling sets a precedent regarding the treatment of landowners in municipal incorporation processes. It affirms that while landowners may have differing rights based on when their properties are added to proposed boundaries, such classifications can be deemed reasonable under the law. The court's decision highlights the balance between protecting landowner interests and enabling the incorporation of new municipalities.
As for what’s next, the landowners have the option to appeal the ruling, but the Supreme Court's decision is binding unless overturned in a future case. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending.