Colorado Supreme Court
Established	1876
Jurisdiction	Colorado
Location	Denver
Composition method	Missouri plan withretention elections
Authorised by	Colorado State Constitution
Appeals to	Supreme Court of the United States
Judge term length	10 years
Number of positions	7
Website	Official site
Chief Justice
Currently	Monica Márquez
Since	July 26, 2024

TheColorado Supreme Court is thehighest court in theU.S. state ofColorado. Located inDenver, the court was established in 1876. It consists of aChief Justice and sixAssociate Justices who are appointed by theGovernor of Colorado from a list of candidates approved by a state judicial commission. Each justice faces aretention election two years after his or her appointment and every ten years thereafter, with mandatory retirement at age 72.

The Court principally handlescertiorari petitions, which request the Court to conduct an additional review of the case. These petitions follow a primary review that is conducted by either the Colorado Court of Appeals or the Colorado District Court. The Colorado Supreme Court is not required to hear these cases.

Only a small fraction of certiorari petitions is granted by the Colorado Supreme Court. From petitions filed in 2015 and 2016, only 6% of all cases were granted an additional review.^[1] It takes three of the seven justices to vote in favor of a certiorari petition for it to be granted.^[1]

In addition, the Colorado Supreme Court has jurisdiction over direct appeals in cases where a trial court finds a law unconstitutional, indeath penalty cases, inwater law cases, in certainelection cases, ininterlocutory appeals (i.e., appeals in the middle of a case) in certain matters of exceptional importance for which an ordinary appeal is not a sufficient remedy, and in certain other cases.^[2]

The Colorado Supreme Court also has original jurisdiction over attorney discipline proceedings, over advisory questions presented by the state legislature or the state attorney general, and questions referred to it by the federal courts. Furthermore, the Colorado Supreme Court has general supervisory and budget authority over the judicial branch, the court rule making process, and the regulation of attorneys. Finally, the Colorado Supreme Court makes appointments to a number of boards and commissions, which often has the effect of providing a tie breaking member in situations where the other appointees are equally divided on partisan lines.

The current Colorado Supreme Court's membership, and the date each justice was appointed, is as follows:

When a vacancy on the court occurs, a commission established by the state constitution reviews submitted applications.^[4] The commission submits three names to the Governor. TheGovernor of Colorado then has 15 days to select the next justice from that list.

The justice selected serves a provisional two-year term before facing aretention election. The voters then chose whether to retain or not retain the justice. If the justice is retained, they go on to serve a full 10-year term before the next retention election.

If a justice is not retained, the appointment process starts again. However, no appellate judge has ever lost a retention election since the system was put in place in 1966. The Justices are not elected as partisan officials, although they are initially appointed by a partisan elected official.

In 2006, an effort to change this system of retaining judges by initiative was rejected by voters, in part due to a campaign against the initiative which had strong support from both Democratic and Republican members of theColorado Bar Association.^{[5][failed verification]}

The chief justice is selected by the justices from among themselves.

The pay is set by the legislature in the yearly budget. The budget year in Colorado starts on July 1.

• Chief Justice – $125,656
• Associate Justice – $122,972

• Chief Justice of the Supreme Court earned $176,799 per year.^[6]

• Chief Justice – $181,219
• Associate Justice – $177,350^[7]

• Chief Justice – $186,656
• Associate Justice – $182,671^[7]

• Chief Justice – $192,256
• Associate Justice – $188,151^[8]

While there is a chamber originally dedicated to the Colorado Supreme Court in thestate capitol building, the Colorado Supreme Court and Colorado Court of Appeals were located in their own building across the street from the state capitol from 1977 to 2010. In August 2010 the building was imploded to make way for a larger court building.^[9] Construction of the new building began in September 2010.^[10] That new building, dubbed the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center, opened in early 2013. Named for a former governor of Colorado,^[11] the building is located at 2 East 14th Avenue in Denver.

The State Supreme Court Building was a box-like structure raised off the ground by two square columns located on the east and west ends of the building. The only parts of the building actually on the ground level were the columns, which contained the entrances and elevators for the building.

The underside of the building featured a 150-foot mural designed by Colorado artist Angelo di Benedetto. It depicted several notable figures, includingHammurabi,Moses andMartin Luther King Jr. The figures represented persons who are believed to have made significant contributions to law and justice. Directly beneath the mural was a large window embedded into the ground that looked down into the undergroundlaw library. Persons in the library were able to look up onto the mural via the ground level glass window.^[12] The mural was removed before the building was demolished, but its ultimate fate is uncertain.^[13]

The courtroom itself was located on the fifth floor of the building (the ground level columns being the first floor). The entrance to the courtroom consisted of two large brass colored metallic doors with a textured design on them. The courtroom was dimly lit with two stained glass windows depicting previous Supreme Court Justices. The well of the courtroom was circular, with a podium for counsel in the center. The podium was a circular column that resembled a container of lipstick that, unlike the rest of the courtroom, was well lit. It faced a semicircular bench with seats for seven justices. Behind the bench was a large drape through which the Justices entered the courtroom.

The former building was designed by John Rogers and RNL Design. SeeRNL Architecture.

The Ralph L. Carr Justice Center was designed byFentress Architects. The judicial wing is four stories tall and contains the Supreme Court courtroom and chambers and Court of Appeals courtrooms. The justice center also includes an adjacent wing that is a twelve-story office tower containing the office of the State Attorney General as well as offices for other State agencies.^[14]

The new Justice Center is named for former Colorado GovernorRalph Lawrence Carr, who served from 1939 to 1943 and was noted for his opposition toJapanese American internment duringWorld War II.^[15]

All opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court arepublished.^[16] Court opinions are initially released asslip opinions and posted on the court's website. They are ultimately published inWestlaw'sPacific Reporter, a regionalcase reporter that is the designated official reporter for the State of Colorado. Westlaw also publishes the state-specificColorado Reporter, repeating all Colorado cases from thePacific Reporter and reusing that reporter'spagination andcitations. TheColorado Bar Association also publishes all Colorado Supreme Court opinions in its monthly journal,The Colorado Lawyer.^[17]

Between 1864 and 1980, the State published its own official reporter,Colorado Reports. Concurrent coverage in thePacific Reporter began in 1883.^[18]

• Facts: The petitioners Hedges and Briggs brought a proposed Initiative that would repeal theTaxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), Colorado Constitution Article X, Section 20.^[19] The Title Board found the initiative violated the Colorado constitution's single subject clause for a ballot initiative.^[20]
• Issue: Did the Title Board make a mistake in finding the ballot initiative is more than a single subject?^[21]
• Decision: On May 13, 1996, five of the seven justices found the Title Board did make a mistake. Justice Gabriel wrote the decision; Chief Justice Coats, and Justices Hood, Hart, and Samour join. Their reasons included:^[22]
  • 1. The initiative only has one objective, the repeal of TABOR. The subjects of the initiative are connected and its subject matter is properly connected.
  • 2. There is nothing in the initiative that could be read to hide something, or pose a risk of surprise on the voters.
  • 3. The initiative was written simply and plainly.
• Analysis: Prior case law, determining that the repeal of a constitutional provision with multiple subjects violates the single subject clause, is not controlling here for a few reasons:
  • 1.In re Proposed Initiative 1996-4, 916 P.2d 528, 533 (Colo. 1996)^[23] only mentioned this principalin dicta, meaning that holding was done as a hypothetical and was not in resolving the case at hand.^[24]
  • 2. All other cases citing that holding referred back to the Proposed Initiative case without further analysis, or its analysis was againin dicta.^[25]
• Dissent: Justice Márquez writes a dissent and Justice Boatright joins.
• Holding: An initiative that repeals a constitutional provision with multiple subjects does not violate the constitution's single subject clause so long as it passes the standard single subject test:^[26]
  • 1. It effectuates one general objective or purpose;
  • 2. Does not treat incongruous subjects in the same measure;
  • 3. Comprises subject matter that is necessarily and properly connected;
  • 4. Contains nothing surreptitious or hidden; and
  • 5. Presents no risk of surprise or fraud on voters.^[27]

• In 1992, Colorado voters approved an amendment to the state constitution, Amendment 2, which forbade any political subdivision within Colorado from taking any action to recognize homosexuals as a protected class of people. In 1993, a trial court issued a permanent injunction against the amendment, and the Colorado Supreme Court agreed, noting the amendment subject to "strict scrutiny" under theEqual Protection Clause of theFourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and remanded the case back to the trial court to find if it could withstand strict scrutiny. The trial court concluded it could not, and the Colorado Supreme Court once again agreed in a 2–1 decision. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court inRomer v. Evans (1996), which affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court in a 6–3 decision, though by applying rational basis review instead.^[28]

The issuehere was whether two federally tax-exempt political organizations that did not include particular words in advertisements such as "vote for," "elect," "support," "vote against," "defeat," or "reject" and did not expressly argue for the election of a particular candidate were not required, under Article 28 of theColorado Constitution, to register as "political committees" with theColorado Secretary of State.^[29]

The Colorado Supreme Courtupheld a trial court ruling that adopted redistricting maps for the state's Congressional districts.

Thiscase involved the question whether the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission was required to hold a hearing on a citizen group's opposition to a drilling permit. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that COGCC did not have to hold such a hearing.

• Facts: In 2012, the City of Aspen implemented a $.20 fee per bag at grocery stores. The city wanted to reduce waste and encourage citizens to bring reusable bags.
• Issue: The issue was whether the levy was a tax or a fee under the law. A tax requires voter approval under the TABOR amendment in the Colorado constitution.
• Decision: The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Rice. She and Justices Márquez, Gabriel, and Hart determined the amount was a fee because it was not levied to raise money for the city and had a specific purpose for the funds.
• Dissent: Justices Coats, Boatright, and Hood dissented.
• Holding: The 2016 decision upheld the unanimous decision by the Colorado Court of Appeals,Union of Taxpayers v. Aspen, 2015COA162.^[30]

• Facts: In 2013, the Respondents proposed a new rule to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. The rule required the commission to only grant new drilling if it would not impair the environment. The commission determined it did not have the statutory authority to grant such a rule. On review, the Denver District Court overruled the commission. The Court of Appeal's (Case 2016CA564) then over ruled the District Court and agreed with the Commission's decision.
• Issue: Did the Commission have the legal authority to approve the Respondent's proposed rule?
• Decision: In 2017, the unanimous opinion was written by Justice Gabriel. It found three reasons the Commission's decision should stand.
  • 1. The Court has a limited role in reviewing a decision by the Commission not to implement a new rule.
  • 2. The new rule would run counter to the authority given to the Commission by the State Legislature.
  • 3. The Commission was already working with another agency to fix the concerns raised by the Respondents.
• Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, reversed the Denver District Court's decision, and upheld the decision of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.^[31]

In January 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court made a ruling to retroactively recognize common-law same-sex marriage.^[32]

On December 19, 2023, in a 4–3 decision , the Colorado Supreme Court declared former presidentDonald Trump ineligible for the presidency under the U.S. Constitution's insurrection clause and removed him from the state's presidential primary ballot (which was eventually overturned by a 9-0 decision by the US Supreme Court).^[33] This marked the first time in history that Section 3 of the14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate. A Colorado district court had previously ruled that theJanuary 6 Capitol attack was an "insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, and that Trump did "engage" in insurrection by inciting the attack (outside of the protections of theFirst Amendment), but that Section 3 did not apply to Trump because the President of the United States is not anOfficer of the United States and thus Trump had not "previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States," as required by Section 3.^[34][35]

After Supreme Court justices received significant violent threats from angry Trump supporters,^[36] the FBI was brought in to investigate.^[37] Further, Trump's lawyer, Jesse Binnall, hinted that these, and other, judges would be subject to prosecution by a "real"Department of Justice in a future Trump administration.^[38]

In thiscase the court ruled that ski resorts cannot obtain a complete waiver from all negligence liability if they include a waiver in a ski pass purchased by consumers.^[39]

In thiscase the court ruled that Weld County was required to comply with state statutes that govern redistricting of county commissioner districts and that home rule status as a county provides no exemption from that obligation.^[40]

In thiscase the court held that state tort law claims against oil companies arising out of damages caused by climate change are not preempted by federal law.^[41]

The Colorado Supreme Court heldhere that the parents of a birth parent spouse do not qualify as "grandparents" entitled to visitation rights involving an adopted child.^[42]

• List of justices of the Colorado Supreme Court
• Bibliography of Colorado
• Geography of Colorado
• History of Colorado
• Index of Colorado-related articles
• List of Colorado-related lists
• Outline of Colorado

• Linz, Robert Michael (2010),Colorado Legal Research,Carolina Academic Press,ISBN 9781594607899

• Colorado State Judicial Branch Homepage
• Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court

39°44′17″N104°59′12″W / 39.738136°N 104.986741°W /39.738136; -104.986741

• State supreme courts of the United States
• Colorado state courts
• 1876 establishments in Colorado
• Courts and tribunals established in 1876

• Webarchive template archiveis links
• Pages using gadget WikiMiniAtlas
• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Use mdy dates from December 2023
• Infobox mapframe without OSM relation ID on Wikidata
• Articles using an unknown Template:Engvar option
• Articles with hCards
• All articles with failed verification
• Articles with failed verification from December 2023
• Coordinates on Wikidata
• Pages using the Kartographer extension