Concerning state court remedies for violations of federal constitutional rights.
Summary
SB 26-176, titled the “No Kings Act,” would create a new Colorado state-law cause of action for people in Colorado who are deprived of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution by someone acting under color of law. The bill authorizes injured parties to seek legal or equitable relief in state court, and it expressly allows courts to award reasonable attorney fees to prevailing plaintiffs, including expert fees in the court’s discretion. It also permits fee awards to defendants when claims are found frivolous.
The measure sets a two-year statute of limitations for constitutional-rights claims brought under the new section and incorporates defenses of absolute and qualified immunity to the same extent they apply in federal civil-rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It also limits injunctive relief against judicial officers acting in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable, and it restricts costs and fees against judicial officers unless they acted clearly outside their jurisdiction. The bill amends Colorado’s general limitations statute to add this new constitutional-rights claim to the list of actions subject to a two-year filing deadline.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new statutory remedy in Colorado law for alleged violations of federal constitutional rights, allowing plaintiffs to bring claims in state court rather than relying solely on federal civil-rights litigation. It would also amend the state’s limitations statute to expressly cover these claims, and it would codify immunity defenses and special rules for actions against judicial officers. The practical effect would be to expand state-court enforcement options for constitutional-rights plaintiffs while preserving major federal-style defenses for government defendants and judges.
Sentiment
The available legislative record suggests the bill did not advance out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it was postponed indefinitely. No vote tally or transcript is provided, so there is no detailed record of floor debate or committee testimony here. Based on the bill’s subject matter and the committee outcome, the overall sentiment appears to have been cautious or unfavorable in committee, or at least insufficiently supportive to move the bill forward.
Contention
The main points of contention likely concern whether Colorado should create a state-court analogue to federal civil-rights litigation and whether that would expose state and local officials to additional lawsuits. The bill’s inclusion of attorney-fee shifting, expert fees, and a new cause of action may have raised concerns among opponents about increased litigation and government liability. At the same time, the bill preserves absolute and qualified immunity and limits relief against judicial officers, suggesting sponsors were trying to balance expanded remedies with protections for public officials and the courts.