In the wee hours of June 3, he got up every hour to check the livestream of workers laying the final layer of roller-compacted concrete on the dam, a major milestone more than two decades in the making. At 3 a.m., workers — completing the main structure of what is now Colorado’s tallest dam and finishing a long-held plan by Denver Water to expand Gross Reservoir.

Martin, the program manager for the dam project, had worked for 12 years on the $600 million effort to replace the old Gross Dam with one that is 131 feet taller, tripling the reservoir’s storage. Crews still have some finishing work remaining, he said, but the major work to raise the dam is now complete.

“Denver Water was not intent on building the tallest dam in Colorado,” Martin said later that morning, standing atop the now-470-foot dam that towers above South Boulder Creek. “This was about water security.”

But it remains unclear whether Denver Water will ever be able to fill the reservoir to its new full capacity as a yearslong court battle lumbers on between the utility and environmentalists.

Months of mediation between the parties have failed. Denver Water is now asking a federal appeals court to reverse a lower court judge’s 2025 order barring the utility from filling the expanded reservoir and ordering the yearslong federal permitting process to be redone. A panel of three judges for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on July 31 in Santa Fe.

U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello in 2024 found that federal regulators violated environmental protection laws when they failed to properly analyze the environmental impact of the project or consider reasonable alternatives to the dam expansion that would be less harmful. She later issued the order against filling the reservoir.

Environmental groups argued in court, and in their filings, that regulators failed to evaluate how siphoning more water from the drought-stricken Colorado River would impact the basin as a whole. And the groups charged that they failed to weigh other project options that wouldn’t require the clear-cutting of a half-million trees or risk damage to wetlands.

The case has drawn the attention of other Front Range water providers, lawyers from across the county and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — all of which have filed briefs in the appeals case.

“This case has reverberated across the country and the Colorado River Basin,” said Gary Wockner, the executive director of , one of the environmental groups pursuing the case. “Everyone’s watching to see what the outcome is here.”

In their legal filings, Denver Water leaders argued that Arguello erred in her decision, which put “decades of work and this critical water supply project in jeopardy,” the utility’s attorneys wrote in their brief to the appeals court. The attorneys urged the appeals court to intercede and “prevent yet another public infrastructure project from being held hostage by litigation.”

Martin, fresh off a breakfast burrito party celebrating the dam’s completion, remained adamant that the reservoir would eventually be filled.

“We will put more water in it,” he said.

Considering climate change

While the dam structure itself is complete, at least a year of work remains to fully finish the project, Martin said. Construction crews must finish the spillway and place the final topper foot of concrete on the completed dam structure. Divers will place a gate between the reservoir’s water and the dam’s intake tubes.

But the crews on site will diminish in the coming months, from up to 500 workers a day to closer to 100. On the morning of June 3, crane operators already worked to remove from the dam crest the heavy machinery that was necessary to build the main structure.

“It has been 20 long, hard years to move through, but Denver Water has been committed to providing more resilient water supplies to our community,” Martin said.

Denver Water began the permitting process for the Gross Reservoir expansion in 2002 and started construction in 2022. The planned expansion of the reservoir outside Nederland will increase the reservoir’s capacity from 42,000 acre-feet to 120,000 acre-feet — enough additional water for about 156,000 households’ annual use.

The expansion will also provide more storage in the utility’s northern fork of its supply network, which Denver Water leaders have said is critical if the larger southern supply system is impacted by fire, mudslides or drought.

Federal litigation over the project had already begun when construction crews started their work. In 2024, when Arguello ruled the project permitting did not comply with federal law, the dam was half finished and hundreds of millions of dollars had been spent.

The panel of appeals court judges will evaluate soon whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers followed federal environmental protection laws when issuing permits for the dam expansion and whether Arguello’s order blocking the filling of the reservoir was reasonable.

One of the key tensions in the legal arguments is whether the Corps of Engineers should have evaluated how climate change will impact the Colorado River, from which the reservoir draws most of its water. The water is transported through the Moffat Tunnel from Grand County, under the Continental Divide and into the South Boulder Creek drainage near Rollinsville.

Opponents of the dam — and the lower court judge — argued that the federal agency should have analyzed whether there would be sufficient water for Denver Water to bring across the Continental Divide to warrant the expansion of the reservoir. And if so, they argued that the agency should have weighed how taking that water would impact the rest of the basin downstream of the diversion.

Denver Water’s attorneys, in their filings to the appeals court, have argued that federal law requires an analysis of how a project impacts the environment, not how climate change could impact a project.

They also wrote that forcing the Corps of Engineers to now consider alternatives to raising the dam height is a moot point, since the dam is already complete and there are no other feasible alternatives at this point.

Allowing a project to stand because construction continued while its legality was being questioned would set a dangerous precedent, Wockner said. The environmental groups suing over the project are simply asking Denver Water to follow the law, he said.

“This is just plain ol’ law enforcement,” he said.

Outside interest

The yearslong case has drawn the interest of other Colorado local governments and water suppliers.

A slew of Front Range water providers — Aurora Water, the South Metro Water Supply Authority and Pueblo’s water board — weighed in, supporting Denver Water. The organizations, which provide water to more than 800,000 people, said the district court judge erred in her decision and that her error “introduces uncertainty and legally-unjustified burdens into the federal permitting process” for the groups’ water infrastructure projects.

The cities of Boulder and Lafayette also filed a brief urging the court to allow the reservoir to be filled. They inked a deal with Denver Water that would allow them to store water in the reservoir that can be released to support the ecosystem of South Boulder Creek.

Denver Water leaders for years have said that, along with the plan for creek releases, they mitigated the environmental damage from the dam project with stream restoration on the headwaters of the Colorado River. They also transferred 500 acres of land near the Indian Peaks Wilderness to the U.S. Forest Service to compensate for the acres that would be drowned by the expanded body of water.

Others urged the appeals court to uphold Arguello’s ruling.

A brief filed by 26 former employees of the Environmental Protection Agency — many of whom worked for the federal agency for decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations — supported Arguello’s decision, stating that the Corps of Engineers failed to consider other less-damaging alternatives to the reservoir expansion.

“This process matters because it could be exploited by applicants in future cases unrelated to Denver Water’s proposal,” the former employees wrote in their brief.

Another filing by 10 natural resources law professors — including several from the University of Denver and the University of Colorado — supported environmentalists’ argument that the federal permitting process ignored how drawing more water for the reservoir would impact the Colorado River Basin.

“The Colorado River cannot support additional withdrawals of this magnitude,” especially where the diversion takes the water over the Continental Divide and out of the river basin, their brief states.

Both Denver Water and Wockner point to this year’s historic drought as evidence for their arguments.

This year’s drought is exactly when the expanded reservoir is needed most, Martin said. The extra water that could be stored in the reservoir would bolster the utility’s supplies for its 1.5 million customers across metro Denver. If it’s allowed to fill up, the expanded Gross Reservoir will increase Denver Water’s total storage by 11% and storage in the north system by 146%.

“In the future when this happens, we’re going to have more flexibility and more resilience,” Martin said.

But that drought has also pushed the larger Colorado River system close to a crash, Wockner said. Federal water managers have sent water down from one reservoir in an emergency action to keep the level of one of the basin’s largest reservoirs, Lake Powell, from falling so low it cannot pass water through its hydropower system.

Diverting more water from the basin to the Front Range will only worsen that crisis, Wockner said.

“It is the worst time in history to be overturning a climate case on the Colorado River,” he said.

The plaintiffs had religious objections to the vaccine, but the university determined their objections weren’t legitimate and fired them, according to the , which represented the former CU employees and .

CU’s in Aurora considered whether employees’ religions had an established doctrine prohibiting them from receiving any vaccines; if not, the school asked whether the employee had received other shots, and what made this one different.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that CU’s process was an unconstitutional religious test by a government entity.

The university could have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, whose current justices have generally favored plaintiffs alleging religious discrimination.

When the vaccines first became available in December 2020, they were more than 90% effective in preventing infection, meaning they could stop further transmission of the virus to health care workers’ patients or colleagues. Since then, COVID-19 variants have become increasingly good at evading the immune system, so that vaccination primarily benefits individuals by reducing the risk of severe illness.

Michael McHale, senior counsel for the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, said nothing could compensate the plaintiffs for career damage from having to choose whether to go against their convictions.

“At great, and sometimes career-ending, costs, our heroic clients fought for the First Amendment freedoms of all Americans who were put to the unconscionable choice of their livelihoods or their faith during what (Supreme Court) Justice (Neil) Gorsuch has rightly declared one of ‘the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country,'” McHale said in a statement. “We are confident our clients’ long-overdue victory indeed confirms, despite the tyrannical efforts of many, that our shared constitutional right to religious liberty endures.”

Julia Milzer, a spokeswoman for CU’s Anschutz Medical Campus, said federal agencies required health care facilities to have a vaccine mandate at the time. The policy is no longer in force, but was right during that stage of the pandemic, she said.

A separate state mandate required health care workers to get the shot or receive a medical or religious exemption is also no longer in place.

“While some chose to challenge the policy, the evidence remains clear: Vaccination was essential to protecting the vulnerable, keeping hospitals open and sustaining education and research,” she said in a statement. “We stand by the decisions made in that moment and remain deeply grateful to the health care professionals, faculty, staff and students whose courage and commitment protected our community and advanced our mission when it mattered most.”

Kaley Chiles, with support from President administration, and about half of U.S. states wrongly bar her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy for kids.

Colorado, on the other hand, says the measure simply regulates licensed therapists by barring a practice that����ap been scientifically discredited and linked to serious harm.

U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments in First Amendment challenge to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban

But the court����ap conservative majority didn’t seem convinced that states can restrict talk therapy aimed at changing feelings or behavior while allowing counseling that affirms kids identifying as gay or transgender. Justice said the law “looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination.”

The arguments come months after the court found other transition-related health care for transgender youths, a setback for LGBTQ rights. The justices are also expected to hear a case about by transgender players this term.

State says therapy is health care and subject to regulation

Colorado has not sanctioned anyone under the 2019 law, which exempts religious ministries. State attorneys say it still allows any therapist to have wide-ranging, faith-based conversations with young patients about gender and sexuality.

“The only thing that the law prohibits therapists from doing is performing a treatment that seeks the predetermined outcome of changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity because that treatment is unsafe and ineffective,” Colorado state attorneys wrote.

Therapy isn’t just speech, they said -- it����ap health care that governments have a responsibility to regulate. Violating the law carries potential fines of $5,000 and license suspension or even revocation.

Linda Robertson is a Christian mom of four from Washington state whose underwent therapy that promised to change his sexual orientation after he came out to her at age 12. The techniques led him to blame himself when it didn’t work, leaving him ashamed and depressed. He died in 2009, after multiple suicide attempts and a drug overdose at age 20.

“What happened in conversion therapy, it devastated Ryan’s bond with me and my husband,” she said. “And it absolutely destroyed his confidence he could ever be loved or accepted by God.”

Chiles contends her approach is different from the kind of conversion therapy once associated with practices like shock therapy decades ago. She said she believes “people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” and she argues evidence of harm from her approach is lacking.

Chiles says Colorado is discriminating because it allows counselors to affirm minors coming out as gay or identifying as transgender but bans counseling like hers for young patients who may want to change their behavior or feelings. “We’re not saying this counseling should be mandatory, but if someone wants the counseling they should be able to get it,” said one of her attorneys, Jonathan Scruggs.

The Republican administration said there are First Amendment issues with Colorado’s law that should make the law subject to a higher legal standard that few measures pass.

Similar laws also face court challenges

Chiles is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that has appeared frequently at the court in recent years. The group also represented a Christian website designer who doesn’t want to work with same-sex couples and a Colorado anti-discrimination law in 2023.

The group’s argument in the conversion therapy case also builds on another victory from 2018: A Supreme Court decision found California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. Chiles should also be free from that kind of state regulation, the group argued.

Still, the Supreme Court has also found that regulations that only “incidentally” burden speech are permissible, and the state argues that striking down its law against conversion therapy would undercut states’ ability to regulate discredited health care of all kinds.

The high court agreed to hear the case after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the law. Another appeals court, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, has struck down similar bans in Florida.

Legal wrangling has continued elsewhere as well. , the state’s highest court recently cleared the way for the state to enforce its ban. Virginia officials, by contrast, have agreed to scale back the enforcement of its law as part of an agreement with a faith-based conservative group that sued.

A Colorado case going before the this week could set nationwide precedent for whether states can bar licensed medical professionals from performing the widely discredited practice of conversion therapy on LGBTQ+ kids.

On Tuesday, the conservative-majority court will hear oral arguments in , a case brought by Colorado Springs counselor Kaley Chiles, who alleges the state’s ban on conversion therapy for minors violates her First Amendment rights.

The will argue that trying to change a young patient����ap sexual orientation or gender identity is substandard medical care, and that greenlighting such care under the umbrella of free speech would “open Pandora’s box” to a litany of licensed professional malpractice.

Nearly half of U.S. states have prohibited the practice of conversion therapy on minors.

But the , an Arizona-based conservative legal organization that is representing Chiles, contends Colorado’s is an attack on licensed medical therapists’ free speech and religious freedoms.

Should the Supreme Court rule in Chiles’ favor, constitutional law expert said not only would the nation’s queer youth be vulnerable to harmful psychological practices, but licensed professionals of all kinds could use the First Amendment as a shield for malpractice, too.

“There are legal malpractice laws that hold lawyers accountable when they give clearly erroneous legal advice,” said Skinner-Thompson, a law professor at the . “There’s medical malpractice when doctors give negligent medical advice. All those things involve communication, and it’s never been controversial or a violation of the First Amendment to regulate that. But that’s exactly what Chiles is asking the Supreme Court to conclude here.”

, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, said Chiles’ argument is laser-focused on free speech. He argued that she experienced “viewpoint discrimination” by being forbidden from counseling conversations aimed at helping a client feel “more consistent with their biological sex.”

“These are conversations that clients want and need,” Warner said.

Practice denounced by health groups

Health organizations around the world — including the , the and the — have denounced the practice of conversion therapy and spoken of the harms of trying to alter a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including increased risks of depression, sexual problems, low self-esteem and suicide.

Alex Floyd, health equity director at LGBTQ advocacy organization , said anyone struggling to understand the impacts of conversion therapy should listen to the stories of those who have endured it.

“I worked with many people who have been through conversion therapy, and the damages of that are lifelong and deeply sit in someone’s soul and psyche,” Floyd said. “I hope folks can understand that and listen to folks that have been harmed. We all deserve therapy where we feel safe and heard and get a chance to heal and grow. We shouldn’t have to go to therapy because of our therapy.”

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser argues that conversion therapy practices are so discredited that they fall under the banner of substandard medical care. To argue that a doctor has the right to provide substandard medical care under the First Amendment would set a dangerous precedent, he said.

For example, if a doctor recommended a child with leukemia skip chemotherapy and instead take Vitamin C, that advice would be substandard care, Weiser said. Shielding poor medical advice under First Amendment protections could mean ill-informed care for anyone, he said.

“We’re about protecting patients,” Weiser said. “Therapists can’t just do things that lack medical basis.”

Warner countered that bans on conversion therapy are what’s harming the nation’s youth.  “Colorado hasn’t identified any study that proves these conversations cause harm,” he said.

In a video , Chiles said Colorado’s conversion therapy ban censors her speech in a way that interferes with her ability to do her job.

“When I am actively having my speech chilled, then I can’t be transparent and honest and genuine with my client, and that’s a real disservice to them,” Chiles said in the video.

Colorado in front of the high court

Colorado has played a notable role in Supreme Court litigation over LGBTQ rights, CU’s Skinner-Thompson said.

In 1996, the court ruled in Romer v. Evans that Colorado’s voter-approved Amendment 2 — which barred municipalities from establishing anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBTQ people — was unconstitutional. The noted that passage of the amendment, which earned Colorado the nickname, was born out of a “desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled on a case in which a Lakewood baker refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, citing his religious objections. The ruling, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, reversed the state’s findings that the baker had discriminated against the couple, instead finding that Colorado was hostile toward him because of his religious beliefs.

And in 2023, the high court ruled that the First Amendment allowed a Colorado graphic designer to refuse to make wedding websites for LGBTQ couples.

“Now, Colorado has elected representatives who have taken a different tack and tried to protect LGBTQ people, and, as a result, Colorado’s laws are being targeted by groups trying to use the First Amendment to create exceptions for and carve-outs against LGBTQ nondiscrimination,” Skinner-Thompson said. “It’s part of a pattern of using the First Amendment to deregulate government more generally speaking, but strike down protections for LGBTQ people, specifically.”

Warner, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, said Colorado is the state the organization has seen the most “coercion” from in recent flare-ups between free speech and LGBTQ rights.

“Colorado officials have consistently interpreted laws to censor speech,” Warner said. “Over the past 15 years, Colorado has been a big battleground for First Amendment issues… Kids and families should get to decide the goals they pursue in counseling, and Colorado, by passing this (conversion therapy) law, is taking away options that families and kids want and need, and that����ap not good for anyone.”

Weiser noted that Colorado law does not prevent health care professionals from sharing information, content or viewpoints with patients, and that therapists can tell patients about conversion therapy and the religious ministers who can engage in those practices. The law also doesn’t mandate counselors affirm any orientation or identity, Weiser said.

Colorado has not taken disciplinary action against Chiles or any licensed professional for engaging in conversion therapy since the law was enacted, Weiser said.

A federal district court and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have upheld Colorado’s law.

“As we are defending this law, we know we’re making sure we’re doing all we can to protect everyone and make sure the LGBTQ community knows you matter and we care about you and we’re not going to let you be harmed,” Weiser said.

A divided panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Aug. 29 that laws regulating the trucking industry do not prevent the resort town from excluding UPS and FedEx.

“These statutes ordinarily preempt local trucking regulations, but exceptions exist for motor vehicle safety,” Judge Robert Bacharach wrote. “Do these exceptions allow a town to regulate trucking companies that frequently deliver goods in a pedestrian mall? We answer yes.”

Judge Gregory Phillips disagreed with his colleagues. Dissenting from the 2-1 opinion in favor of Vail, Phillips wrote that the truck ban cannot be logically tied to pedestrian safety, since Vail still allows similar trucks driven by a city contractor, 106West Logistics, on the malls.

“Indeed, the amended ordinance restricts neither delivery vehicle size nor delivery vehicle frequency. Instead, it regulates based on the owner of the vehicle,” Phillips noted.

In 2022, Vail passed an ordinance prohibiting delivery trucks from entering Vail Village and Lionshead Village, to make those areas friendlier to pedestrians. Trucks had to leave their cargo at loading docks, where small 106West carts would then pick it up and deliver it.

The ordinance initially made an exception for commercial mail carriers, like FedEx, UPS and the U.S. Postal Service. But in 2023, Vail began cracking down on them as well. The Colorado Motor Carriers Association sued to stop that crackdown. Because trucking is federally regulated, towns can impose their own rules only when public safety is jeopardized, it noted.

The industry group won a victory in late 2023 when U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney blocked enforcement of the ban, finding it had been enacted to maintain mountain aesthetics rather than save lives. She, too, questioned why 106West����ap vehicles were allowed.

That ruling was appealed to the 10th Circuit, which sided with Vail. In a statement this week, the Town of Vail said it remains “committed to providing a safe environment for everyone.”

“The 10th Circuit����ap opinion directing the district court to dissolve a preliminary injunction that barred the town from fully enforcing its loading and delivery regulations is a significant step forward in Vail’s ongoing efforts to reduce vehicular-pedestrian interactions,” it said.

The 10th Circuit����ap three-judge panel decided that Sweeney was “substituting her own judgment about better ways to enhance safety” when she determined Vail was not focused on safety because it allows other trucks on the malls. “Connection to safety isn’t lost just because a more expansive restriction might have been more effective,” the judges wrote.

“We’re not policymakers, but the town’s leaders are. Those leaders presumably enjoy expertise when deciding how to address safety concerns. Recognition of that expertise leaves us little room to second-guess the leadership’s policy choices based on our policy preferences.”

The Town of Vail is represented by David Goldfarb, Josh Marks and Abbey Derechin with Berg Hill Greenleaf Ruscitti in Boulder. The CMCA’s lawyers are James Eckhart, Shannon Cohen and Adam Smedstad at Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary in Indianapolis.

The CMCA’s lawyers did not respond to BusinessDen’s request for comment on the ruling.

Read more from our partner,

Weiser’s office Tuesday that argues conversion therapy — a medically discredited practice in which medical professionals try to change a patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity — is substandard medical care for minors that can be prohibited by states.

“No amount of talk, pressure or shaming can make a gay person not gay, or a transgender person not transgender. Licensed therapists shouldn’t be able to abuse their position of trust to push an agenda that causes long-lasting harm to kids and families,” Weiser said during a news conference. “The Supreme Court should adhere to its long line of precedents and affirm the states’ power to regulate health care and protect kids and families from substandard practices.”

In March, the Supreme Court agreed to take up a Colorado case, , to decide whether state and local governments can enforce laws banning conversion therapy for children. The court scheduled oral arguments for Oct. 7.

Colorado Springs counselor Kaley Chiles challenged the state’s ban, alleging it violated her First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion. She is represented by the , which has been involved in high-profile social issues such as a 2018 decision in which Supreme Court justices ruled California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide abortion information.

“The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors, nor should a counselor be used as a tool to impose the government����ap biased views on her clients,” Kristen Waggoner, CEO and general counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said after the high court agreed to hear the case.

The conservative-led U.S. Supreme Court took up the case amid actions by President Donald Trump targeting transgender people, including a and an  for transgender minors.

Colorado is one of 25 states with laws banning conversion therapy on minors.

“Regardless of how this practice is performed, it does not work and causes long-lasting harms that include depression, self-hatred, loss of faith and suicide,” Weiser said.

Weiser noted that Colorado law does not prevent health care professionals from sharing information, content or viewpoints with patients, and that therapists can tell patients about conversion therapy and the religious ministers who can engage in those practices. The law also doesn’t mandate counselors affirm any orientation or identity, Weiser said.

“The only thing that the law prohibits therapists from doing is violating the standard of care by performing a treatment that seeks to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity,” Weiser said.

Colorado has not taken disciplinary action against Chiles or any licensed professional for engaging in conversion therapy since the Colorado law barring the practice was enacted in 2019, Weiser said. A federal district court and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have upheld Colorado’s law.

The state is asking the Supreme Court to affirm the judgment of the lower courts, Weiser said.

A federal judge in Denver issued an order Wednesday to prevent the deportation of the wife and five children of the Egyptian man suspected in the firebombing attack on demonstrators in Boulder who were calling for the release of Israeli hostages.

U.S. District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher granted a request from the family of Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, to halt deportation proceedings for his wife and children, who were taken into federal custody Tuesday by U.S. immigration officials.

Eric Lee, a representing the family, said Wednesday that Soliman’s wife and children should not be punished for his actions, and noted they appeared to have a pending asylum case that allowed them to remain legally in the United States.

“It����ap a basic principle of any democracy that individual responsibility is required for punishment or detention,” he said. “Only in a police-state dictatorship are measures of collective punishment used against the population, especially against asylum seekers, and especially against asylum seekers as young as 4 years old.”

Soliman’s wife, Hayam Salah Alsaid Ahmed El Gamal, 41, and the couple’s five children were being held at the Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Texas on Wednesday, Lee said. The children include two 4-year-old twins, an 8-year-old, a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old, he said.

The Department of Homeland Security said Wednesday that the couple’s oldest daughter is an 18-year-old adult; Lee said she is only 17.

The deportation hold — ordering federal authorities not to remove the family from Colorado or the U.S. — will stand until it is lifted by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, or the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Gallagher wrote in the two-page temporary restraining order.

“The Court finds that deportation without process could work irreparable harm and an order must issue without notice due to the urgency this situation presents,” Gallagher wrote in the order issued at 2:01 p.m.

The judge scheduled a hearing in the case for June 13.

Soliman is accused of carrying out a terror attack on Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall on Sunday. He is alleged to have shouted “Free Palestine” and used a makeshift flamethrower and Molotov cocktails to burn more than a dozen people who had gathered for a weekly demonstration urging the release of Israeli hostages held in Gaza.

The shocking violence on the popular pedestrian mall shook the Jewish community in Colorado and across the nation; the U.S. Department of Justice labled it an “antisemitic terror attack.”

Soliman lived in the Colorado Springs area with his family, who are all Egyptian citizens.

He spent 17 years living in Kuwait before he and his family arrived in the U.S. on Aug. 27, 2022, according to Homeland Security. They were granted entry to the U.S. until Feb. 26, 2023. Soliman overstayed his visa and applied for political asylum in Denver on Sept. 29, 2022, listing his wife and children as dependents, according to Homeland Security.

Soliman was granted a work authorization in March 2023, but that also expired.

But an exhibit filed with El Gamal’s attempt to block her deportation includes a notice from February 2023 that informs the family their asylum case is pending.

“You may remain in the U.S. until your asylum application is decided,” the notice reads.

Lee said Wednesday that the current status of the asylum case is unclear and that he had not received any information about changes in the case after Sunday’s attack. He said the family is alleging in their asylum case that they have a credible fear of returning to Egypt.

“I have seen the press reports indicating the visas were revoked,” he said. “It is not entirely clear to me what that is about. This is also a situation where I’ve had the ability to talk to Ms. El Gamal for seven minutes before ICE cut our phone call off, so we are going on limited information.”

Federal officials moved quickly to detain Soliman’s wife and children after Sunday’s attack, and the White House that the family could be deported as soon as that night.

Emails included as an exhibit in El Gamal’s Colorado case show she exchanged a series of one-line emails with her immigration attorney beginning at 10:36 a.m. Tuesday.

“Hi please call urgently Florence Colorado ice office,” El Gamal wrote in one email.

The Boulder County District Attorney’s Office on Wednesday increased the number of victims in the attack, saying 15 people and a dog were hurt; all are expected to survive. Their ages range from 25 to 88, and include eight women and seven men.

“We continue to work closely with our federal, state and local partners in strong response to this horrific attack,” District Attorney Michael Dougherty said in a statement. “We are united in our commitment to pursuing justice for all the victims, their many loved ones, and this community. We stand with the Jewish community and the people of Colorado against hate and terror.”

Boulder spokesperson Jamie Barker said the dog suffered minor injuries, but no other details about the animal were available.

Soliman is expected to be charged in state court Thursday with dozens of criminal counts, including attempted murder. He has already been charged with a federal hate crime count in connection with the attack.

Daily Camera reporter Nicky Andrews and Denver Post reporter Jessica Alvarado Gamez contributed to this report.

The well-known immigrant-rights advocate was in the country without proper legal status, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers were following a reinstated removal order, U.S. Justice Department attorneys wrote in the Tuesday filing. It responded to arguments by Vizguerra’s legal team in recent weeks that the government’s arrest of Vizguerra in March violated her First Amendment rights.

The federal attorneys counter that, as a noncitizen, Vizguerra can’t argue that her free-speech rights were violated during her arrest, detention and potential deportation from the country.

“The Supreme Court has determined that noncitizens cannot challenge the enforcement of a removal order based on a selective-enforcement theory,” the lawyers wrote, adding that Vizguerra “does not have a viable First Amendment retaliation challenge here.”

The filing was signed by acting U.S. Attorney J. Bishop Grewell and assistant U.S. attorneys Benjamin Gibson, Timothy Jafek and Kevin Traskos. Vizguerra’s attorney, Laura Lichter, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

Her attorneys initially filed an emergency petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which is a request to determine the validity of a person’s detention. U.S. District Judge Nina Wang in late March ordered ICE not to deport Vizguerra until her petition was litigated.

The new round of arguments comes over a month after Vizguerra was first detained outside her workplace, a Denver-area Target store, on March 17. She has been held at an ICE detention facility in Aurora.

Vizguerra first crossed the border from Mexico illegally in 1997, and she gained attention nationally for her advocacy after sheltering in two Denver churches to avoid deportation during President Donald Trump’s first term.

Vizguerra’s attorneys have pointed to several examples of what they considered to be retaliatory behavior by the government. Those include by the Department of Homeland Security’s assistant secretary for public affairs, Tricia McLaughlin, that said: “We will find, arrest, and deport illegal aliens regardless of if they were a featured ‘Time Person of the Year.’ ”

She was referring to Vizguerra being named one of TIME magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world in 2017, while she was in sanctuary.

Still, the government lawyers wrote that Vizguerra had failed to prove that she wouldn’t have been arrested if she wasn’t an activist and that the users behind those social media accounts were involved in the decision to detain her.

They reasserted a previous argument that this case doesn’t fall within the purview of the District Court and instead should have been filed in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Another element of Vizguerra’s case was debated in legal documents this week: her . That screening is part of a process during a removal order in which an asylum officer assesses the merits of a detainee’s fears about returning to their home country.

Lichter, Vizguerra’s attorney, argued in another Tuesday filing that didn’t provide Vizguerra or her lawyers with enough notice to prepare on numerous occasions. And she said a guard at the detention center and an asylum officer both tried to mislead Vizguerra during those proceedings.

USCIS ultimately found that Vizguerra did not have what it considered reasonable fears about returning to Mexico because she didn’t answer questions during her interview, according to a separate legal document.

The document included a declaration from Simone Grant, an associate district director for USCIS. The screening interview was rescheduled several times, Grant said, with partial screenings conducted on March 31 and April 11.

On April 14, USCIS issued a negative reasonable fear determination because Vizguerra didn’t provide evidence of the potential for persecution or torture in Mexico, Grant said. She added that, in line with policy, the agency had since referred Vizguerra to an immigration judge to review the findings.

Government attorneys said the decision by USCIS and actions by asylum officers do not relate to ICE, which is a different federal agency.

The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday denied the Elizabeth School District’s request to pause the court’s preliminary injunction from earlier this month that ordered the titles to be re-shelved. In doing so, the appellate court also lifted a temporary stay on the order.

The fate of the 19 books — most of which center the stories of people of color or LGBTQ individuals — has played out through a series of court rulings in response to a December lawsuit brought by the  alleging the books’ removal violated free speech protections.

Superintendent Dan Snowberger said the Elizabeth School District was disappointed by the court’s ruling, but noted the appeal is still pending — meaning the return of the books is not permanent at this point.

“We feel confident the problematic content of these books will be exposed during the appeal,” Snowberger wrote in an email. “In the meantime, we will respect and comply with the lower court����ap order. We are in the process of obtaining copies of the books now since they are no longer in the district����ap possession.  Because the books were identified as books containing sensitive topics, they will be placed on the sensitive topics list so that parents who have chosen to ‘opt their children out’ of sensitive content will be able to do so as this case plays out.”

Tim Macdonald, ACLU of Colorado’s legal director, said he looks forward to the books being put back on shelves.

“The courts have once again confirmed what has always been true: the Elizabeth School District cannot remove books just because they don’t align with the board’s preferred political beliefs,” Macdonald said in a statement. “Ensuring students have access to a diversity of viewpoints in their school libraries is in the best interest of all students, parents and teachers.”

The court has yet to set a new deadline for the books to be returned.

Elizabeth school board members voted in the fall to remove the 19 titles — including “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini, Toni Morrison’s “Beloved” and “The Bluest Eye,” and Angie Thomas’ “The Hate U Give” — from library shelves because they contained passages describing sexual activity, “controversial social and political commentary,” “alternate sexualities,” “hate” and abortion.

A federal judge has twice before ordered the books to be returned to Elizabeth School District libraries, but appeals from the district stalled those court orders both times.

Books the Elizabeth School District has removed from shelves:

• “The Hate U Give” by Angie Thomas
• “Thirteen Reasons Why” by Jay Asher
• “#Pride: Championing LGBTQ Rights “by Rebecca Felix
• “You Should See Me in a Crown” by Leah Johnson
• “It����ap Your World — If You Don’t Like It, Change It: Activism for Teenagers” by Mikki Halpin
• “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini
• “Beloved” and “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison
• “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” by Stephen Chbosky
• “Looking for Alaska” by John Green
• “Nineteen Minutes” by Jodi Picoult
• “Speak” by Laurie Halse Anderson
• “Identical,” “Fallout,” “Glass,” “Burned,” “Crank” and “Smoke” by Ellen Hopkins
• “George” by Alex Gino

The decision comes as Colorado prepares this year to revise an improvement plan after failing another air quality benchmark. The state is now in severe violation of two federal ozone pollution standards, and it must find a way to reduce that pollution or face more penalties.

The Denver-based appellate court’s ruling does not require the EPA to force the state to include stricter pollution permits for the oil and gas industry in its plan. Instead, it asks the federal agency to think about it and explain why the exemption was allowed when the original plan was written in 2019.

“Colorado effectively was amending its rules in its state implementation plan to say it didn’t have to consider drilling and fracking when considering an oil and gas well pad permit,” said Ryan Maher, staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, the environmental group that sued the federal government over the plan. “We are trying to purge the exemption from the state implementation plan.”

The appeals court’s ruling stems from a 2023 lawsuit that challenged what Maher described as a permitting loophole for the oil and gas industry in Colorado. The court’s decision did not put a timeline on the EPA to reconsider the loophole. It will be up to the EPA under President Donald Trump to decide when and how it will comply with the court’s order.

Tenth Circuit Judge Robert Bacharach wrote in the opinion that “the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to address the potential emissions during drilling, fracking and well completion.”

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment joined the EPA in defending the lawsuit. The American Petroleum Institute filed an amicus brief in defense of the EPA.

The state health department said it is pleased the 10th Circuit “remanded without vacating the center’s second challenge, giving EPA the opportunity to justify its original approval,” spokesperson Zachary Aedo said Tuesday.

Becky O’Brien, spokesperson for American Petroleum Institute in Colorado, said the industry trade group is “reviewing the ruling and look(s) forward to working with the agency on next steps.”

Colorado’s nine-county of two federal ozone standards. The region, which includes metro Denver, has been in severe violation of a 2008 standard since 2022, and earlier this month, Colorado’s health department sent notice that it would voluntarily ask the EPA to downgrade its compliance with a stricter 2015 standard.

Under the Clean Air Act, states that miss federal air quality benchmarks are required to write plans, known as State Implementation Plans, that outline a path to reduce pollution. The EPA signs off on the plan.

Colorado’s air pollution regulators are almost constantly writing and revising improvement plans because of the state’s two ozone violations. Those plans include such as promoting the use of electric vehicles and lawn-and-garden equipment and regulating emissions from manufacturing facilities.

But Maher said Colorado is too prone to creating loopholes for the oil and gas industry, which accounts for 45% of nitrogen oxide emissions and 41% of volatile organic compound emissions released in the state.

In 2022  the state health department’s Air Pollution Control Division miscalculated nitrogen oxide emissions from drilling and fracking operations by nearly double and had to rewrite a portion of its plan. The plan that was eventually approved was criticized by environmental groups, which said it did not do enough to get the state into compliance with the Clean Air Act.

“The state bemoans its ability to attain so they do things like bump up timelines or regulate lawnmowers,” Maher said. “They’re so reluctant to take on the oil and gas industry.”

Colorado regulators are now making plans to write the next version of an to explain how the state will strive toward meeting the 2015 standard, and they are hosting in May and June to update the public.

The state plans to hold a hearing to approve the plan in November and then submit it to the EPA in 2026, Aedo said.

The Center for Biological Diversity also prevailed in a 2022 lawsuit over how the state regulates emissions from fracking sites, with the 10th Circuit ruling the EPA erred in allowing Colorado to exclude all temporary emissions from fracking in its permitting program.

Now Maher hopes the state will consider emissions when issuing new air-pollution permits for fracking and drilling operations in its next improvement plan.

“It����ap a wake-up call that this exemption needs to be removed,” Maher said. “It����ap a sign that other loopholes and oil and gas industry handouts need to stop.”

Updated 10:43 a.m. April 29, 2025: This story was updated to add comments from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.