View source for Colorado Supreme Court

{{Short description|Highest court in the U.S. state of Colorado}}
{{use mdy dates|date=December 2023}}

{{Infobox high court
|court_name = Colorado Supreme Court
|image = Colorado Supreme Court seal.png
|imagesize = 
|caption = 
|established = 1876
|jurisdiction = [[Colorado]]
|location = [[Denver]]
|type = [[Missouri plan]] with [[retention election]]s
|authority = [[Colorado State Constitution]]
|appealsto = [[Supreme Court of the United States]]
|terms = 10 years
|positions = 7
|website = [https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/ Official site]
|chiefjudgetitle = Chief Justice
|chiefjudgename = [[Monica Márquez]]
|termstart = July 26, 2024
|termend = <!-- year term for current chief as chief ends, if applicable-->
|termend2 = <!-- year term of current chief ends if applicable-->
}}
The '''Colorado Supreme Court''' is the [[supreme court|highest court]] in the [[U.S. state]] of [[Colorado]]. Located in [[Denver]], the court was established in 1876. It consists of a [[Chief Justice]] and six [[Associate Justice]]s who are appointed by the [[Governor of Colorado]] from a list of candidates approved by a state judicial commission. Each justice faces a [[retention election]] two years after his or her appointment and every ten years thereafter, with mandatory retirement at age 72.

== Powers and duties ==

===Appellate jurisdiction===

==== Discretionary appeals ====

The Court principally handles [[certiorari]] 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.<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Protocols.cfm|title=Colorado Judicial Branch – Supreme Court – Protocols|website=www.courts.state.co.us|access-date=2018-05-02}}</ref> It takes three of the seven justices to vote in favor of a certiorari petition for it to be granted.<ref name="auto" />

==== Appeals of right ====

In addition, the Colorado Supreme Court has jurisdiction over direct appeals in cases where a trial court finds a law unconstitutional, in [[death penalty]] cases, in [[water law]] cases, in certain [[election]] cases, in [[interlocutory 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.<ref>[https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Index.cfm About the Court], Colorado Supreme Court web page (2016). Retrieved 2016-12-31.</ref>

===Original jurisdiction and supervisory powers===

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.

== Membership ==

=== Current makeup ===
{{Main|List of justices of the Colorado Supreme Court}}
The current Colorado Supreme Court's membership, and the date each justice was appointed, is as follows:

{|class="sortable wikitable"
|-
! Justice !! Born !! Joined !!Chief Justice !! Term ends !!Mandatory retirement{{efn|Justices must retire when they reach the age of 72.}}!!Appointed by !! Law school 
|-
| {{sortname|Monica|Márquez}}, Chief Justice
| {{birth date and age|1969|4|20}}
| {{dts|2010|12|10}}{{efn|Originally appointed as an Associate Justice; elected unanimously as Chief Justice and sworn in on July 26, 2024.<ref>{{Cite press release |title= New Supreme Court Chief Justice Sworn In|date=July 26, 2024 |publisher=Colorado Judicial Branch |location=[[Denver]], [[Colorado]] |url=https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/press-release/new-supreme-court-chief-justice-sworn}}</ref>}}
| 2024–present
| 2034
| 2044
| {{Party shading/Democratic}}| [[Bill Ritter]] (D)
| [[Yale Law School|Yale]]
|-
| {{sortname|Brian|Boatright}}
| {{birth date and age|1962|6|16}}
| {{dts|2011|11|21}}
| 2021–2024
| 2034
| 2034
| {{Party shading/Democratic}}| [[John Hickenlooper]] (D)
| [[Sturm College of Law|Denver]]
|-
| {{sortname|William W.|Hood III}}
| {{birth year and age|1963}}
| {{dts|2014|01|13}}
| align="center" | {{sort|0|–}}
| 2026
| 2036
| {{Party shading/Democratic}}| [[John Hickenlooper]] (D)
| [[University of Virginia School of Law|Virginia]]
|-
| {{sortname|Richard L.|Gabriel}}
| {{birth date and age|1962|3|3}}
| {{dts|2015|09|29}}
| align="center" | {{sort|0|–}}
| 2028
| 2038
| {{Party shading/Democratic}}| [[John Hickenlooper]] (D)
| [[University of Pennsylvania Law School|Penn]]
|-
| {{sortname|Melissa|Hart|Melissa Hart (judge)}}
| {{birth based on age as of date|31|2001|6|3}} 
| {{dts|2017|12|14}}
| align="center" | {{sort|0|–}}
| 2030
| 2050
|{{Party shading/Democratic}}| [[John Hickenlooper]] (D)
| [[Harvard Law School|Harvard]]
|-
| {{sortname|Carlos|Samour}}
| {{birth based on age as of date|48|2015|04|09}}
| {{dts|2018|07|02}}
| align="center" | {{sort|0|–}}
| 2030
| 2040
|{{Party shading/Democratic}}| [[John Hickenlooper]] (D)
| [[Sturm College of Law|Denver]]
|-
| {{sortname|Maria|Berkenkotter}}
| {{birth based on age as of date|57|2020|11|23}}
| {{dts|2021|01|01}}
| align="center" | {{sort|0|–}}
| 2034
| 2034
|{{Party shading/Democratic}}| [[Jared Polis]] (D)
| [[Sturm College of Law|Denver]]
|}
{| style="margin: 1em auto;"
|-
|}
{{notelist}}

=== Appointment process ===
When a vacancy on the court occurs, a commission established by the state constitution reviews submitted applications.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Nominating.cfm|title=Colorado Judicial Branch – Supreme Court – Judicial Nominating Commissions|publisher=Courts.state.co.us|access-date=2016-12-31}}</ref> The commission submits three names to the Governor. The [[Governor 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 a [[retention 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 the [[Colorado Bar Association]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://fordhamlawreview.org/issues/direct-democracy-and-the-electoral-college-can-a-popular-initiative-change-how-a-state-appoints-its-electors/|title=Direct Democracy and the Electoral College: Can a Popular Initiative Change How a State Appoints Its Electors?|website=Fordham Law Review|language=en-US|access-date=2016-03-24}}</ref>{{failed verification|date=December 2023}}

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

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

==== 2006 ====
* Chief Justice – $125,656
* Associate Justice – $122,972

==== 2016 ====
* Chief Justice of the Supreme Court earned $176,799 per year.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/27/colorado-judges-pay-hike-benefit-lawmakers/|title=Colorado judges seek steep pay hikes that also would benefit lawmakers|date=December 27, 2016|work=Denver Post|access-date=2017-11-02|language=en-US}}</ref>

==== 2017 – 2018 ====
* Chief Justice – $181,219
* Associate Justice – $177,350<ref name=":0" />

==== 2018 – 2019 ====
* Chief Justice – $186,656
* Associate Justice – $182,671<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018A/bills/2018a_jud_act.pdf|title=HB 18-1322, p. 135; Colorado Judicial Budget for 2018–2019, Page 12.}}</ref>

==== 2019 – 2020 ====
* Chief Justice – $192,256
* Associate Justice – $188,151<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019A/bills/sl/2019a_sl_454.pdf|title=2019 Colorado Long Bill, Ch 454, Pg 4261, (PDF Pg 149).}}</ref>

== Court building ==
[[File:Colorado Supreme Court courtroom.JPG|thumb|The Colorado Supreme Court courtroom]]
[[Image:Colorado-supreme-court-building.jpg|thumb|right|Former Colorado State Judicial Building, since demolished]]

While there is a chamber originally dedicated to the Colorado Supreme Court in the [[Colorado State Capitol|state 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.<ref>{{cite web|last=McGhee |first=Tom |url=http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_15789930 |title=Colorado judicial building puts on show, disappears – The Denver Post |date=15 August 2010 |publisher=Denverpost.com |access-date=2016-12-31}}</ref> Construction of the new building began in September 2010.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_16162810|title=Search Results for "ci_16162810" – The Denver Post|website=denverpost.com|date=27 October 2023}}</ref> That new building, dubbed the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center, opened in early 2013. Named for a former governor of Colorado,<ref>[http://www.9news.com/dontmiss/333921/630/Who-was-Ralph-Carr New Colorado Judicial Center named after former Governor] 9News, May 2, 2013 {{webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20130628020912/http://www.9news.com/dontmiss/333921/630/Who-was-Ralph-Carr |date=2013-06-28}}</ref> 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, including [[Hammurabi]], [[Moses]] and [[Martin 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 underground [[law library]].  Persons in the library were able to look up onto the mural via the ground level glass window.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_15011048|title=Search Results for "ci_15011048" – The Denver Post|website=denverpost.com|date=27 October 2023}}</ref>  The mural was removed before the building was demolished, but its ultimate fate is uncertain.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_15370881|title=Search Results for "ci_15370881" – The Denver Post|website=denverpost.com|date=27 October 2023}}</ref>

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. See [[RNL Architecture]].

The Ralph L. Carr Justice Center was designed by [[Fentress 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.statebillnews.com/2010/09/will-justice-center-unveiled-today-last-100-years/ |title=Will Justice Center, Unveiled Today, Last 100 Years? &#124; State Bill Colorado |publisher=Statebillnews.com |date=2010-09-27 |access-date=2016-12-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170101001655/http://statebillnews.com/2010/09/will-justice-center-unveiled-today-last-100-years/ |archive-date=2017-01-01 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

The new Justice Center is named for former Colorado Governor [[Ralph Lawrence Carr]], who served from 1939 to 1943 and was noted for his opposition to [[Japanese American internment]] during [[World War II]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/govs/carr.html |title=Archives &#124; |publisher=Colorado.gov |date=2016-12-27 |access-date=2016-12-31}}</ref>

==Publication of opinions==
All opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are [[Non-publication of legal opinions in the United States|published]].<ref>{{harvnb|Linz|2010|p=118}}.</ref> Court opinions are initially released as [[slip opinion]]s and posted on the court's website. They are ultimately published in [[Westlaw]]'s ''[[Pacific Reporter]]'', a regional [[case reporter]] that is the designated official reporter for the State of Colorado. Westlaw also publishes the state-specific ''Colorado Reporter'', repeating all Colorado cases from the ''Pacific Reporter'' and reusing that reporter's [[pagination]] and [[legal citation|citations]]. The [[Colorado Bar Association]] also publishes all Colorado Supreme Court opinions in its monthly journal, ''[[The Colorado Lawyer]]''.<ref>{{harvnb|Linz|2010|pp=99–102}}</ref>

Between 1864 and 1980, the State published its own official reporter, ''Colorado Reports''. Concurrent coverage in the ''Pacific Reporter'' began in 1883.<ref>{{harvnb|Linz|2010|pp=99, 101}}.</ref>

==Notable cases==

=== ''In re Ballot Title #3'', 1996 ===

* '''Facts''': The petitioners Hedges and Briggs brought a proposed Initiative that would repeal the [[Taxpayer Bill of Rights]] (TABOR), Colorado Constitution Article X, Section 20.<ref>''In Re Ballot Title #3,'' 2019CO57, p. 2 ¶ 1.</ref> The Title Board found the initiative violated the Colorado constitution's single subject clause for a ballot initiative.<ref>''In Re Ballot Title #3,'' 2019CO57, p. 2 ¶ 4.</ref>
* '''Issue:''' Did the Title Board make a mistake in finding the ballot initiative is more than a single subject?<ref>''In Re Ballot Title #3,'' 2019CO57, p. 3 ¶ 9.</ref>
* '''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:<ref>''In Re Ballot Title #3,'' 2019CO57, p. 5 ¶ 17.</ref>
** 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)<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4171489142821149771&q=916+P.2d+528&hl=en&as_sdt=4,6 |title=In re PROPOSED INITIATIVE 1996-4.|access-date=2022-09-20}}</ref> only mentioned this principal ''in dicta,'' meaning that holding was done as a hypothetical and was not in resolving the case at hand.<ref>''In Re Ballot Title #3,'' 2019CO57, p. 7 ¶ 23 and p. 8 ¶ 27.</ref>
** 2. All other cases citing that holding referred back to the Proposed Initiative case without further analysis, or its analysis was again ''in dicta''.<ref>''In Re Ballot Title #3,'' 2019CO57, p. 9 ¶ 28.</ref>
* '''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:<ref>''In Re Ballot Title #3,'' 2019CO57, p. 13 ¶ 40.</ref>
** 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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 17, 2019 |title=No. 19SA25, In re Ballot Title #3—Title Setting—Single Subject Requirement—Ballot Initiatives. |url=https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2019/19SA25.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230406083823/https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2019/19SA25.pdf |archive-date=April 6, 2023 |website=Colorado Judicial Branch}}</ref>

=== ''Romer v. Evans'', 1996 ===

*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 the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth 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 in [[Romer v. Evans]]'' (1996), which affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court in a 6–3 decision, though by applying rational basis review instead.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1039 |title=Romer v. Evans at Oyez; |publisher=Oyez.org |access-date=2016-12-31}}</ref>

=== ''Union of Taxpayers v. Aspen'', 2016 ===
*'''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, [https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2015/14CA1869-PD.pdf ''Union of Taxpayers v. Aspen'', 2015COA162].<ref>{{Cite web |date=May 21, 2018 |title=No. 16SC377, Colorado Union of Taxpayers Found. v City of Aspen—Taxation Constitutional Law—Local Government Law. |url=https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SC377.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180523011251if_/https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SC377.pdf |archive-date=May 23, 2018 |website=Colorado Judicial Branch}}</ref>

=== ''Colorado Oil & Gas v. Martinez'', 2017 ===
*'''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.<ref>{{cite web |title=No. 17SC297, COGCC v. Martinez —Administrative Law and Procedure—Mines and Minerals |url=https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2017/17SC297.pdf |website=courts.state.co.us |publisher=Colorado Supreme Court |access-date=14 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240119070500/https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2017/17SC297.pdf |archive-date=19 January 2024 |language=en-us |format=PDF |date=January 14, 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Common-law same-sex marriage, 2021===
In January 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court made a ruling to retroactively recognize common-law same-sex marriage.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/state-supreme-court-recognizes-same-sex-common-law-marriages-prior-to-2015-legalization/article_9c244ad4-5443-11eb-9f98-77fc33e399d9.html|title=State Supreme Court recognizes same-sex common law marriages prior to 2015 legalization|date=11 January 2021}}</ref>

=== ''Anderson v. Griswold'', 2023 ===
{{main|Trump v. Anderson}}
On December 19, 2023, in a 4–3 decision , the Colorado Supreme Court declared former president [[Donald 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).<ref>{{cite web |title=Donald Trump banned from Colorado ballot in historic ruling by state's Supreme Court |url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2 |website=AP News |access-date=20 December 2023 |language=en |date=19 December 2023}}</ref> This marked the first time in history that Section 3 of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]] has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate. A Colorado district court had previously ruled that the [[January 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 the  [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]]), but that Section 3 did not apply to Trump because the President of the United States is not an [[Officer 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.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-11-18 |title=Donald Trump to remain on Colorado primary ballot after judge dismisses lawsuit |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67446313 |access-date=2023-11-18}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Marshall |date=2023-11-18 |title=Colorado judge keeps Trump on 2024 primary ballot as latest 14th Amendment case falters |language=en |work=[[CNN]] |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html |access-date=2023-11-18}}</ref>

After Supreme Court justices received significant violent threats from angry Trump supporters,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-12-21 |title=Colorado Supreme Court justices face a flood of threats after disqualifying Trump from the ballot |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/colorado-justices-face-flood-threats-disqualifying-trump-ballot-rcna130720 |access-date=2023-12-23 |website=NBC News |language=en}}</ref> the FBI was brought in to investigate.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=December 21, 2023 |title=FBI looking into surge in threats against Colorado justices who ruled Trump can't be on primary ballot |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-surge-threats-colorado-justices-ruled-trump-primary/story?id=105855615 |access-date=2023-12-23 |website=ABC News |language=en |quote=“The FBI is aware of the situation and working with local law enforcement… We will vigorously pursue —investigations of any threat or use of violence committed by someone who uses extremist views to justify their actions regardless of motivation.”}}</ref> Further, Trump's lawyer, Jesse Binnall, hinted that these, and other, judges would be subject to prosecution by a "real" [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] in a future Trump administration.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Trump lawyer threatens Colorado top court and 'other judges' with future prosecutions - Raw Story |url=https://www.rawstory.com/trump-prosecute-colorado-judges/ |access-date=2023-12-23 |website=www.rawstory.com |language=en |quote=Every single one of these people, and [when] we actually have a real Department of Justice, should be held to account for their decision to throw our justice system into the fire}}</ref>

==See also==
{{portal|Government|United States|Colorado}}
*[[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]]
{{clear}}

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
*{{citation |title=Colorado Legal Research |first=Robert Michael |last=Linz |year=2010 |publisher=[[Carolina Academic Press]] |isbn=9781594607899}}

== External links ==
{{sister project links|auto=yes}}
*[http://www.courts.state.co.us/ Colorado State Judicial Branch Homepage]
*[https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Justices.cfm Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court]
{{Coord|39.738136|-104.986741|region:US_type:landmark|display=title}}
{{Clear}}
{{US Judiciaries|expanded}}

{{authority control}}

[[Category:State supreme courts of the United States|Colorado]]
[[Category:Colorado state courts|Supreme Court]]
[[Category:1876 establishments in Colorado]]
[[Category:Courts and tribunals established in 1876]]