by Bob Lackner

Currently some 16 states, including Colorado, make it a crime to make false statements in political campaigns. In the recently decided case of Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, No. 13-193 (U.S. June 16, 2014), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the ground rules that govern when a person chooses to challenge the constitutionality of one of those laws. The court held that a group may have standing to claim the protections of the First Amendment before being convicted of the crime of issuing false statements during a political campaign if the group that challenges the law is accused of violating the law and is likely to be accused of violating the law again. (more…)

by Anshu Agarwal and Bart Miller

On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that government employees are protected under the First Amendment if they provide truthful sworn testimony that is outside of their regular job responsibilities. (more…)

by Julie Pelegrin

The Establishment Clause within the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Similarly, section 4 of article II of the Colorado Constitution states in part, “…Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.” In many cases, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the federal provision to require not only government neutrality as to religion, but also to require a separation between government and religion.

But, each morning during the legislative session, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate ask everyone in their chambers to rise for the morning prayer. Over the years, leaders of a wide variety of religions have been invited to lead the prayer, including Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Mennonites, Presbyterians, Nondenominational Christians, Jews, Hindus, Southern Utes, and Ute Mountain Utes. How can it be constitutional for the legislature to say a prayer every day before it begins working? (more…)

by Esther van Mourik

A panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver recently ruled on the so-called “Amazon tax” in the DMA v. Barbara Brohl case.  The ruling was a blow to out-of-state retailers seeking to avoid meeting certain reporting requirements or having to collect state sales tax from its Colorado customers on their purchases. (more…)

by Richard Sweetman

by Julie Pelegrin

Using public moneys to pay the tuition at a religious school does not violate Colorado’s constitutional requirements for separation of church and state. At least that’s what the Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled. The Court recently reversed a district court opinion and held that the Douglas County School District’s choice scholarship program is constitutional. In addition to providing guidance for interpreting several sections of the constitution, the opinion also provides interesting rulings concerning the ability of a taxpayer to enforce state law and the standard for interpreting school district policies. (more…)

by Julie Pelegrin

On May 23, 2013, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of State v. Lobato (Lobato II), finding that the Public School Finance Act of 1994 is constitutional. The opinion holds that the statutory school funding system is rationally related to the General Assembly’s constitutional duty to establish and maintain a “thorough and uniform” statewide system of free public education. But the opinion actually does much more. The opinion defines the phrase “thorough and uniform”, implies that the constitution does not require a minimum level of funding for education, and further clarifies school districts’ local control authority. Most importantly, Lobato II demonstrates that a majority of the Court strongly supports the separation of powers and will not interfere with the General Assembly’s plenary authority to set education policy. (more…)

by Julie Pelegrin

On Sept. 26, the plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors in Lobato v. State, and 13 other organizations filed briefs with the Colorado Supreme Court in response to the state defendants’ appellate briefs. The plaintiffs’ briefs and the briefs filed by the amicus curiae (“friends of the court”) argued that, for varying reasons, the trial court was correct in finding that the “Public School Finance Act of 1994” (PSFA) does not meet the state constitution’s requirement that the General Assembly establish and maintain a thorough and uniform system of public education. For this reason, they argued that the Supreme Court should uphold the trial court’s findings and order. For the Office of Legislative Legal Services’ memorandum describing the trial court’s decision, click here. For our August 9 article summarizing the defendants’ appellate briefs, click here. (more…)

by Julie Pelegrin

Last December, Judge Sheila Rappaport, Denver District Court found the “Public School Finance Act of 1994” (PSFA), article 54 of title 22 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, unconstitutional in the case of Lobato v. Colorado (“Lobato”). In a nutshell, Judge Rappaport found that the school finance system is not rationally related to the General Assembly’s constitutional duty to establish and maintain a thorough and uniform statewide public school system because the PSFA is not based on the actual cost of educating students to achieve statewide standards and the system of funding public schools significantly underfunds those costs. For the OLLS memorandum describing the trial court’s decision, click here. (more…)

by Brita Darling

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court ruled on objections to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (567 U.S. ___ (2012)), or NFIB v. Sebelius. The majority opinion upheld the ACA, including the provisions relating to the creation of health insurance exchanges and the individual mandate to obtain insurance coverage, as well as the Medicaid expansion provisions. (more…)