Matt MacPherson, a political commentator active on social media, shared a series of posts on December 6, 2025, discussing the limits of judicial authority and the separation of powers under the Utah Constitution.
In his first post at 22:56 UTC, MacPherson wrote, “Judges can provide a legal remedy, but not an unconstitutional remedy. Queens can do what they want though.”
Continuing the thread just seconds later, he added, “Again, unconstitutional. Separation of powers violation. Has Queen Gibson ever read the Utah constitution?”
In his final post in this sequence, MacPherson emphasized the importance of constitutional boundaries between branches of government: “The Utah Constitution is a rule book. Three branches have their own lanes, they stay in them. They check each other under the rules of the constitution. Legislation and initiatives are part of the rules, as is redistricting. Judges clarify. Queens burn the rulebook.”
MacPherson’s comments refer to fundamental principles within state governance structures—the separation of powers among legislative, executive, and judicial branches as defined by constitutions such as Utah’s. The doctrine generally holds that each branch has distinct functions and must not encroach upon the roles assigned to others.
These posts come amid ongoing public debate about judicial involvement in issues like redistricting and legislative processes in various states. In Utah specifically, questions regarding constitutional interpretation and balance between government branches have been central to recent policy discussions.
