New Colorado Measures on Pronoun Use and Legal Practice Draw Legal Scrutiny and Appeals

(Oldglorychronicle.com) – Colorado’s Democratic legislature continues pushing laws that mandate compelled speech and restrict attorney communications despite suffering a string of humiliating Supreme Court defeats that have cost taxpayers millions in legal fees.

Story Snapshot

Colorado enacted HB 25-1312 forcing businesses to recognize “gender expression” including pronouns, now under appeal after initial injunction denied
Senate Bill 25-276 requires lawyers to certify they won’t share court data with federal immigration officials before accessing e-filing systems
State has lost repeatedly at Supreme Court including 8-1 defeat on conversion therapy bans, unanimous reversal on Trump ballot removal, and compelled speech cases
Legal experts predict new laws are “facially unconstitutional” and will generate more costly defeats funded by taxpayers

Pattern of Constitutional Overreach

Colorado’s Democratic-controlled government has enacted two controversial laws in 2025-2026 that legal analysts say continue a pattern of First Amendment violations. House Bill 25-1312 mandates that public accommodations recognize individuals’ chosen “gender expression,” including preferred names and pronouns. The Alliance Defending Freedom is appealing to the 10th Circuit after U.S. District Judge Regina Rodriguez, a Biden appointee, denied a preliminary injunction for plaintiffs including XX-XY Athletics and Born Again Used Books. This approach mirrors tactics that led to previous Supreme Court losses in Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative, where Colorado attempted to compel speech from business owners.

Unprecedented Attorney Certification Requirement

Senate Bill 25-276, implemented in March 2026 after a brief September 2025 delay, breaks new ground by inserting immigration politics into the legal profession’s basic operations. The law requires attorneys to certify they will not share court filing data with federal immigration enforcement before accessing the state’s electronic filing system. This appears designed to obstruct cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley predicts this law is “facially unconstitutional” and represents Colorado’s determination to resist federal authority regardless of constitutional constraints or taxpayer costs.

Supreme Court Rebukes Accumulate

The state’s losing streak at the nation’s highest court is remarkable in its consistency and margins. In 2018, Masterpiece Cakeshop resulted in a 7-2 defeat for Colorado’s hostile treatment of religious views. The 303 Creative decision in 2023 delivered a 6-3 loss striking down compelled website design. Trump v. Anderson in 2024 saw Colorado’s attempt to remove Trump from the ballot overturned unanimously. Most recently, Chiles v. Salazar ended 8-1 against the state’s conversion therapy restrictions, with only Justice Jackson siding with Colorado. Rather than learning from these defeats, the legislature responded by waiving statutes of limitations to impose heightened liability on counselors.

Taxpayer-Funded Ideological Crusade

Each defeat generates substantial legal costs borne by Colorado taxpayers, yet Democratic lawmakers show no inclination to change course. The pattern suggests elected officials prioritize ideological goals over fiscal responsibility or constitutional constraints. This resonates with growing frustration among citizens across the political spectrum who see government officials pursuing partisan agendas while ignoring practical consequences. The state’s tourism slogan “It’s Our Nature” has become an ironic commentary on Colorado’s apparent institutional hostility toward dissenting viewpoints, whether from religious business owners, counselors offering traditional therapy, or attorneys cooperating with federal law enforcement.

Broader Implications for Federal-State Conflicts

Colorado’s approach tests the limits of state power to resist both Supreme Court precedents and federal immigration enforcement. The attorney certification requirement directly challenges the Trump administration’s ability to identify and remove individuals in the country illegally, a core campaign promise. Meanwhile, the gender expression mandates reflect the same compelled speech approach already rejected in multiple Supreme Court cases. Legal observers anticipate these laws will generate additional appeals, potentially reaching the Supreme Court again and further solidifying First Amendment protections against state overreach while adding to Colorado’s tab for defending constitutionally dubious positions.