Summary#

Utah’s Resolution Admonishing and Censuring Judge Don M. Torgerson is a House resolution; it does not amend an existing Act or create a new statutory rule. It formally censures Judge Torgerson over remarks at a sentencing hearing, and criticizes a Utah State Courts statement about the case. Its stated goal is to recognize the harm of child sexual exploitation and condemn remarks the House says minimized that harm.

• The resolution says that at a May 20, 2025 sentencing hearing, Judge Torgerson reviewed two videos involving sexual assaults of children and said, “I’ve seen worse.” It also cites his comments about the defendant’s jail time and privileged background.
• The House finds that the judge’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and brought his office into disrepute, and formally censures him.
• The resolution says the Utah State Courts gave inaccurate information by suggesting the prosecutor had agreed to probation rather than prison time. That is the resolution’s account of the dispute.
• It directs that copies go to Judge Torgerson, the Judicial Conduct Commission, and the Judicial Council, and that the resolution be recorded in the House Journal.

What it means for you#

• Judge Torgerson: He is formally censured by the House. The resolution does not state that he loses his position, pay, or judicial powers, or impose another penalty.
• Judicial Conduct Commission and Judicial Council: They are to receive copies. The resolution does not require either body to investigate or take further action.
• Utah State Courts: The House publicly expresses disappointment with the courts’ statement. The resolution does not require the courts to change their practices.
• Public: It makes no direct change to legal rights, court procedures, or services.

Money#

The resolution appropriates no money.

• No publicly available information gives an estimate of any administrative cost, such as sending copies or recording the resolution.

What is unclear#

• The resolution does not describe a process for Judge Torgerson to respond or challenge the House’s findings.
• It does not say whether the Judicial Conduct Commission or Judicial Council will act after receiving it.
• It does not specify any consequence beyond the House’s censure and public criticism.
• It does not explain whether delivery to the governor has any effect on the resolution.

Case for#

• The resolution appears intended to defend public confidence in the courts and emphasize the harm child sexual exploitation causes.
• A possible argument for the censure is that a judge’s words during sentencing can affect how the public understands the seriousness of the crime.
• The House also argues that the courts’ statement about the prosecutor’s position was inaccurate and deserved public correction.

Case against#

• The resolution does not set out a process for testing its account of the hearing or giving the judge a chance to respond.
• It censures the judge but does not explain what practical consequence, if any, the censure should have.
• One concern is that a legislative rebuke of a judge could be seen as pressure on the judiciary; the resolution does not address that concern or set limits on its effect.