Colorado officials have been schooled not once but multiple times by U.S. Supreme Court justices on the First Amendment. Nevertheless, they continue to forget the lesson that government cannot censor, compel or coerce speech. Colorado is back in court once again. Luckily, it is not too late for the General Assembly to correct the violation before taxpayers have to pay for more tutoring.

Thanks , Coloradans cannot use biologically accurate pronouns or titles in their interactions with their colleagues at work. If they do not address customers and colleagues by their preferred pronouns, the business could run afoul of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act as amended. To protect First Amendment rights, XX-XY Athletics, an athletic apparel company, and Born Again Used Books sued in federal court.

While XX-XY Athletics v. Sullivan and Born Again Used Books v. Sullivan make their way through the courts, the legislature can easily amend the law to comport with the Constitution while it is still in session.

Surely, legislators knew this was going to happen.

In 2023, the High Court ruled 6-3 in 303 Creative v. Elenis that public accommodation laws like Colorado’s anti-discrimination act cannot be used to compel speech. The case involved a website designer who said she would refuse to design websites for same-sex weddings. The Court ruled that her wedding website design was speech and the designer could not be forced by the government to write messages with which she disagrees.

The precedent set in that case went further to protect creative entrepreneurs than even the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In that case, the court ruled in favor of baker Jack Phillips because they said Colorado officials had demonstrated religious hostility toward Phillips. The court did not rule either way on the First Amendment. Phillips had been sued for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, and the Civil Rights Commission had ruled against Phillips.

This year, the Court once again affirmed First Amendment rights in Chiles v. Salazar. In an 8-1 decision, justices ruled that the government cannot censor or compel speech in counseling sessions. When working with clients under the age of 18 suffering from gender dysphoria, Colorado law prohibited counselors from saying anything that might help the client accept his or her biological sex. The law demanded that counselors affirm a client¶¶Ňőap alternate gender identity or stay silent. The 2026 Court decision nullified such unconstitutional viewpoint-based restrictions in Colorado and some 20 other states.

While government officials are free to believe that sex or gender is a changeable attribute, they cannot foist their opinion on others under penalty of law. Americans who deem sex and gender biologically determined and immutable have the right to express that view in private and public, even if it means refusing services. This includes the right to use pronouns and titles that correspond with biological sex even if it causes employment discrimination.

Appeals courts have decided in favor of such free speech in Meriwether v. The Trustees of Shawnee State University, Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation, and Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, et al.

Attorneys for the clothing and book store owners have appealed to the 10th Circuit and, based on these precedents, are likely to succeed. If the legislature amends the Colorado Anti-discrimination Act to be consistent with constitutional rights, litigants can drop the suit, and no additional funds need be expended to fight an unwinnable battle against the First Amendment.

In a pluralistic society, there are a variety of opinions about the nature of sex, gender, and marriage and everyone has the right to express their opinion in speech, writing, and artistic creation. No one can use the power of government to silence or force fellow Americans to profess what they do not consider to be true.

One early free speech decision captures the lesson: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,” wrote Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson for the majority in the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The new lawsuit alleges that Colorado’s ban on ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds violates the Second Amendment’s right for citizens to keep and bear arms. It argues that such magazines are standard for many weapons.

“Law-abiding Americans own and use for lawful purposes literally hundreds of millions of magazines such as those banned by the State,” the complaint reads. “A detachable magazine is an integral part of most semi-automatic firearms, including the AR-15 rifle. As such, they are covered by the Second Amendment¶¶Ňőap right to keep and bear arms.”

Attorney General Phil Weiser vowed to defend the ban in a statement Wednesday, reiterating a stance he and other state and local officials took when the DOJ first threatened the lawsuits against Denver and the state earlier this week.

“Using federal civil rights law to put Coloradans at greater risk of gun violence is a dangerous overreach by the Justice Department, and this lawsuit turns the mission of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division on its head,” Weiser said in the statement. “Large-capacity magazine laws are responsible policies that satisfy Second Amendment protections, decrease the deadly impacts of mass shootings, and save lives.”

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on large-capacity magazines in 2020, finding that the prohibition did not violate residents’ right to bear arms as guaranteed by the state Constitution. The decision did not consider whether the ban violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

State lawmakers passed the ban in 2013 in the wake of the Aurora movie theater shooting the prior year, in which the gunman used a large-capacity magazine to fire more than 60 rounds in less than a minute, killing 12 and wounding dozens.

The state in January contracted with , a Denver firm that specializes in probing workplace issues, to investigate complaints within the department, according to a copy of the agreement obtained through an open records request.

While the department declined to elaborate on the nature of the $25,000 investigation, a review of internal complaints and interviews with seven current and former agency leaders and workers paint a picture of a toxic work environment that impacted the mental health of its staff. Leadership was abusive, inappropriate and demeaning, employees told The Denver Post. Several high-ranking members of the agency left under strained circumstances, with the state paying them money to avoid litigation.

“Not only are they ruining people’s lives,” said one former employee, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they still work for the state, “they’re destroying the state’s second-largest agency.”

All told, the Department of Human Services has paid departing employees nearly $2.8 million in settlement agreements since 2019, when Gov. Jared Polis’ administration took the reins. These cases have concerned alleged pay, age, gender and disability discrimination, whistleblower protection violations, and retaliatory firings, among other accusations.

“That place is a trainwreck,” said Mark Schwane, an employment attorney who frequently represents state workers. “It’s a disaster.”

Department of Human Services officials declined an interview request for this story and did not respond to a list of questions from The Post. In a statement, a spokesperson said the department does not comment on personnel matters, including any investigations tied to individual employees. The external probe remains ongoing.

Employees have a variety of resources to address workplace concerns, including submitting grievances or complaints to leadership, requesting mediation or submitting discrimination or workplace violence reports, said Haysel Hernandez, a department spokesperson.

If an investigation finds that a staff member violated policies or the law, the department takes “immediate action to remedy the situation,” she said in the statement.

“The Colorado Department of Human Services strives to establish a respectful, healthy workplace where all employees are valued and treated fairly,” Hernandez said.

‘So many concerns’

The Colorado Department of Human Services is a sprawling state agency with more than 4,800 employees, trailing only the Department of Corrections in size.

It’s the department of “people who help people,” leadership says, responsible for providing services to children and families, the disabled, and older adults. The agency also manages the state’s child welfare system, 12 youth detention and commitment centers, and two state mental hospitals.

The department’s first stated value: people first. But individuals who worked there say the agency’s own staff don’t seem to get that same treatment.

Those who have been interviewed as part of the outside investigation told The Post that the questions have largely centered on one person: , deputy executive director for operations and strategy.

Morrison referred to her leadership style as “slap and tickle,” which employees who spoke to The Post said made them uncomfortable. She also made inappropriate comments about people’s work statuses, staff said, reminding them that they could be fired at any time.

One staff member said Morrison told them they lacked “executive presence” and recommended they dress in such a way that required them to go beyond the organization’s official dress code. Others said the leader was known for making fun of others in team settings.

“She was very abusive as far as I’m concerned and used her power to intimidate people,” said the former employee who spoke of leadership ruining people’s lives.

Two former high-ranking department members specifically called out Morrison in internal complaints after leaving the agency.

AnneMarie Harper, the department’s former director of communications, cited “hostile and inequitable working conditions” that Morrison created and maintained “through a pattern of inconsistent expectations, inappropriate conduct and professional undermining and communication failures,” she wrote in an appeal and dispute form before the , which was obtained by The Post.

Harper declined an interview request for this story.

In January, another top official filed a complaint with the department’s Civil Rights Unit, alleging Morrison and two other leaders forced her to retire by creating an “intimidating and psychologically harmful (workplace) such that it affected her physical well-being.”

Kristen Withrow, the former associate director for the , which operates the state’s juvenile commitment and detention facilities, said she was left out of meetings, publicly humiliated and scapegoated for safety issues that went on in the youth centers. Her treatment at the end of her tenure was so bad, she wrote, that she applied for family and medical leave for the first time in her 30-year career to care for her health.

“I have so many concerns in the last nine months,” Withrow wrote in a February email included in her complaint. “…I’m just so sad about all of this.”

Withrow declined to talk to The Post about her departure.

Employees say they chose to work for the Department of Human Services because they cared deeply about the agency’s mission to help those less fortunate. But the longer they worked there, the more they realized that their own mental health suffered as a result.

Multiple people told The Post that their sleep suffered while in the job. Others began going to therapy to deal with all the work stress. One former staffer said they burst into tears during a job interview when asked why they left the department.

“The values espoused and printed all over the place, we don’t seem to know how to live those out,” said a current employee, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they still work for the department.

While Morrison received the bulk of the attention from the outside investigators, many of the former staffers said her boss, , also bore responsibility for the department’s toxic culture.

“If you’re not stopping it, you’re part of it,” the current employee said. “I think she is complicit. Katy can only do what she’s allowed to do.”

Barnes and Morrison, through a department spokesperson, declined interview requests for this story.

Millions in settlements

Barnes has also overseen the agency’s practice of paying out high-dollar settlements to departing staffers who challenged their terminations or brought claims in court or with the state personnel board.

The Post obtained all settlement agreements involving the Department of Human Services that concerned monetary payouts to employees since Polis took office in 2019. The department, during that span, reached financial agreements with at least 69 staffers, paying out a total of $2.8 million.

Those agreements spanned $500 on the low end to more than $400,000 to settle claims with a worker who filed a federal lawsuit.

In that 2020 suit, a psychologist working at the at Fort Logan alleged that her supervisor demonstrated “abusive and authoritarian behavior” toward the female psychologists at the facility and used false claims to demote her and go after her professional license.

In a 2019 federal complaint, the director of nursing at a Wheat Ridge facility for those with intellectual and developmental disabilities said she was paid less than her white and non-Asian colleagues for the same work. The director, who is Asian, said leadership retaliated against her after she brought grievances over the discriminatory pay.

The Department of Human Services ended up paying her $383,750 to settle the nursing director’s claims.

Over the past two years, the department has reached 26 agreements with staffers to avoid litigation. Many did not involve money and only dealt with whether an employee’s departure was designated as a termination or resignation.

Fourteen of these deals, though, involved state payouts, to the tune of $381,900. Only the Colorado Department of Corrections paid out more money — $502,702 — to its workers during the last two years.

Harper received $95,000 to resolve her claims. Another worker got $26,500 after alleging their termination was discriminatory. A third person negotiated $122,000 after saying his separation was retaliation in violation of the . One staffer obtained nearly $40,000 to resolve civil rights and charges based on disability discrimination.

Some, though not all, agreements involved nondisparagement clauses, which prohibit the sides from making negative statements about each other. Several also included nondisclosure language, mandating that neither side discuss the settlement negotiations with a third party.

The Department of Human Services needs wholesale change at the top, said Schwane, the employment lawyer. The department rewards loyalty over quality of work, he said, which results in anyone giving negative feedback being pushed out.

“They’re reliable sychophants,” Schwane said.

Settlement agreements are used for a variety of reasons, and do not necessarily indicate wrongdoing by the department or employee, Hernandez, the agency spokesperson, said in a statement. These deals “ensure a fair process, and, when needed, a reasonable opportunity to resolve disagreements or provide a supportive transition out of the agency,” she said.

“The department continues to welcome feedback from staff and is committed to a positive, productive and successful workplace culture that helps employees conduct their best work,” Hernandez said.

Heather Wilcox, a 20-year state employee, said she was administratively dischargedĚýfrom her communications job with — part of the Department of Human Services — after she took an extended leave following the deaths of both her parents and one grandparent.

Her supervisors questioned her about her leave and rejected her accommodation requests when she tried to return to work, she said in an interview.

Wilcox lost her hearing as a child and received cochlear implants — a fact that made her deaf but “not deaf enough” for some in the community, she said. A job helping Colorado’s deaf and hard-of-hearing was a dream come true. Until it wasn’t.

“The whole thing was horrifically abusive,” Wilcox said. “My own community did this to me.”

Wilcox lost health insurance for her and her daughter. She says she feels blackballed as she applies for other jobs.

She filed a claim with the state personnel board, alleging her discharge was discriminatory. In March, the state agreed to let her resign, removed disciplinary memos from her file, and paid her $40,000 plus attorney fees to avoid a protracted legal dispute.

Wilcox wonders how she became so disposable after spending her entire career in public service.

“How do you treat people like that at CDHS?” she said.

The Jan. 13 recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell is a tentative win for state officials and a loss for the eight plaintiffs, which include four school districts, three charter schools, and one public education cooperative. A federal district court judge will now review the recommendation and make a final decision.

The by the conservative-leaning District 49 near Colorado Springs, after its school board passed a policy banning transgender girls from girls sports teams and transgender boys from boys sports teams.

The recommendation came the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in cases brought by two transgender athletes who oppose state laws barring transgender athletes from girls and women’s teams.

The high court¶¶Ňőap conservative-leaning majority seemed open to upholding the state laws, according to national news outlets, but how broad or narrow such a ruling would be remains to be seen.

One of the defendants in the Colorado case, the Colorado High School Activities Association, in early December.

Dominguez Braswell’s recommendation, even if it¶¶Ňőap affirmed by a district court judge, may not have much effect on high school sports in Colorado, because it doesn’t directly weigh in on the legitimacy of policies that ban transgender students from joining sports teams that match their gender identity. Rather, it says the districts and schools that filed the lawsuit don’t have the standing to sue the state on their own behalf or to sue on behalf of their students.

Michael Francisco, an attorney with the law firm First & Fourteenth, which is representing the plaintiffs, said he disagrees with Dominguez Braswell’s recommendation and looks forward to filing objections with the district court judge soon.

“This recommendation will not alter the course of this case or deter us from continuing this litigation to ensure every district in Colorado has the freedom to protect girls’ sports, safeguard student privacy, and uphold the spirit of Title IX,” he said in an emailed statement.

A spokesperson for the Colorado Attorney General’s office declined to comment Friday.

A number of Colorado districts have policies that allow transgender students to join sports teams consistent with their gender identity. Others make decisions on a case-by-case basis. Some, including the districts and schools that sued, recently passed policies barring transgender students from playing on teams that match their gender identity.

In their lawsuit, the districts argued that the state’s antidiscrimination law, which includes protections for transgender people, put the districts in an “untenable position” because they risked state penalties over their transgender athlete policies.

In her recommendation, Dominguez Braswell said settled legal principles prohibit the districts from bringing claims against the state based on the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. She also took issue with the plaintiffs’ claim to represent the interests of all district students.

The plaintiffs brought two of their claims on behalf of all students, she noted, “but their interests do not align with all students.”

She said the districts’ policies barring transgender students from certain sports teams “cut against the interests of transgender students” and “may also cut against the interests of students who seek inclusivity in school-sponsored activities.”

In addition to the 26,000-student District 49, the plaintiffs include Colorado Springs 11, Academy 20, Montezuma-Cortez, James Irwin Charter Schools, Monument Academy, The Classical Academy, and Education reEnvisioned Board of Cooperative Education Services.

The defendants in the case were Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, the Colorado Civil Rights Division, and the Colorado High School Activities Association.

When the districts settled with the Colorado High School Activities Association in early December, the association agreed not to sanction plaintiff schools or teams over their transgender athlete policies. The settlement also required the plaintiffs to pay the activities association $60,000.

The association’s bylaws for years of transgender athletes to participate on sports teams that match their gender identity and stated that the group can review district decisions on such matters.

But the group had never penalized a school or district for policies on transgender athletes or dictated what those policies should say, an association spokesperson said in December.

This story was , a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at

Since legislators in the majority just can’t seem to understand the First Amendment, they got schooled by the courts on multiple occasions.

Constitution 101: the First Amendment forbids government agencies, federal, state or local, from enacting a law or regulation “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.”

The government cannot quash or coerce speech, establish religion or prevent its exercise. If state legislators and regulators learn these principles, taxpayers will not have to foot the bill for yet another needless trip to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lesson one: Agencies cannot abridge free speech by forcing people to parrot the government¶¶Ňőap ideological message. That¶¶Ňőap called coerced speech. A week ago, a Biden-appointed federal judge that requires cigarette pack-style health warnings on gas stoves and imposes a fine of up to $20,000 per violation if they don’t.

The judge agreed with the plaintiffs, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, that the law likely infringes on their First Amendment freedoms. “The court disagrees that the labeling requirement merely enables customers to access information — the only reason customers can access this information is because the State compels peddlers of gas stoves to speak it,” the court ruled. “Further … whether the information is truthful and accurate is subject to substantial disagreement within the scientific community.”

In addition to familiarizing themselves with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers v. Weiser decision, legislators will want to read the Supreme Court¶¶Ňőap 2023 decision in the Colorado case and the cases it cites as homework.

Lesson two: The government cannot abridge free speech by censoring it. Earlier this year, Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor, defended her First Amendment rights to the Supreme Court. A 2019 law prohibits counselors from helping clients come to terms with their biological sex through talk therapy. The law threatens counselors with thousands of dollars in fines and a potential loss of license unless they stick to government-approved speech. Based on the justices’ questions during oral argument, the Colorado law is likely to be struck down.

In addition to familiarizing themselves with the Chiles v. Salazar case, legislators will want to read Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of N.C., Inc. and the National Institute of Family & Life Advocates. v. Becerra decisions as homework.

Lesson three: The government cannot establish religion, or prohibit its exercise. Laws must be neutral toward religion neither advancing nor hindering its practice, and the government cannot discriminate against people for their beliefs. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court received 19 friend-of-the-court briefs from 22 states, numerous representatives from policy and law think tanks and various faith traditions, and Colorado families urging the Supreme Court to hear St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a suit brought by the Archdiocese of Denver, two Catholic parishes, and two parents of preschool-age children. Colorado has been excluding Catholic preschool providers from its “universal” state preschool program for upholding church doctrines. Catholic families seeking a preschool education that aligns with their faith must pay out of pocket while other families get 15 hours of preschool education for free.Ěý That¶¶Ňőap not fair or consistent with the First Amendment.

The state should have learned this lesson earlier this year when it settled a lawsuit brought by Camp IdRaHaJe, a Christian summer camp. The camp can continue to operate its summer programming without compromising its policies regarding biological sex. The state agreed to update its guidelines and website to clarify that “churches, synagogues, mosques, or any other place that is principally used for religious purposes” are exempt from state dictates that force licensed resident camps to permit campers to use dorms and restrooms of the opposite sex.

In addition to familiarizing themselves with Camp IdRaHaJe Association v. Roy, legislators will want to read the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision as homework.

While it¶¶Ňőap a heavy reading list, once completed, legislators and regulators can be confident that they will start the new year equipped to establish laws and regulations that are actually consistent with First Amendment rights.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Some of those districts and schools passed policies this year barring transgender students from joining teams that align with their gender identities.

The agreement marks the end of the Colorado High School Activities Association’s involvement in a federal lawsuit spearheaded last spring by the 27,000-student District 49 near Colorado Springs. The lawsuit will continue with other defendants, including Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and officials from the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

The settlement won’t have much effect on high school sports in Colorado because CHSAA has never had a major role in determining which school teams transgender athletes can join. The group’s bylaws have for years of transgender athletes to participate on sports teams that match their gender identity and state that the group can review district decisions on such matters.

But the group has never penalized a school or district for policies on transgender athletes or dictated what those policies should say, a CHSAA spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

“Eligibility decisions have always been left to individual schools and districts, which is why being named in this lawsuit was both frustrating and unnecessary,” she said.

The statement called the plaintiffs’ decision to sue CHSAA “much more performative than substantive,” and said it won’t change anything about the group’s policies, practices, or authority.

The outcome of the ongoing lawsuit between the state and the eight plaintiffs remains to be seen. The state’s anti-discrimination law includes protections based on gender identity.

A number of Colorado districts have policies that allow transgender students to join sports teams consistent with their gender identity. Others make decisions on a case-by-case basis, and more recently, some bar transgender students from playing on teams that match their gender identity.

In addition to CHSAA’s agreement not to sanction the plaintiff districts and schools for policies on transgender athletes, the settlement states that CHSAA won’t penalize the plaintiffs for making public statements about the “advantages of biological males over biological females in competitive sports” or the risk of “allowing biological males to play contact sports with or against biological females.” The agreement says this provision won’t apply to statements that advocate violence or demean people based on gender identity.

The settlement also states that if an athlete or team forfeits a competition against a transgender athlete or a team with a transgender member, there will be no penalty, but the forfeit will be counted as a loss.

Finally, the settlement stipulates that the plaintiffs will pay CHSAA $60,000 to cover legal fees and operational costs.

In a news release, District 49 Superintendent Peter Hilts said, “​This settlement is a major step forward, but our work isn’t done. We will continue litigation against the Colorado Civil Rights [Division] and the Attorney General’s Office to ensure every district in Colorado has the freedom to protect girls’ sports, safeguard student privacy, and uphold the spirit of Title IX.”

Multiple Republican lawmakers cheered the settlement on social media Thursday.

Rep. Jeff Hurd, who represents western and southern Colorado in Congress, said on X, “At its core, this settlement is about fairness, safety, and common sense. Schools have a responsibility to protect young women and maintain a level playing field by upholding basic biological standards. As a father of daughters, I know how important that is.”

District 49 , the day after its conservative-learning board narrowly passed a controversial policy banning transgender middle and high school students from joining school teams that align with their gender identity. The policy was developed after President Trump’s February executive order that threatened to withhold federal funding from any school that allows athletes assigned male at birth to participate in girls’ or women’s sports.

In addition to District 49, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Colorado Springs 11, Academy 20, Montezuma-Cortez, James Irwin Charter Schools, Monument Academy, The Classical Academy, and Education reEnvisioned Board of Cooperative Education Services.

This story was , a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at .

LeEllen Condry filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Denver after obtaining the right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

The lawsuit, brought by attorneys Andy McNulty and Mari Newman, alleges the discriminated and retaliated against Condry and violated her First Amendment rights after she labeled as racist the removal of books from district library shelves.

“Knowledge is power, but the Elizabeth School District is so hell-bent on depriving its students access to information that it not only banned books expressing marginalized viewpoints, it fired LeEllen Condry for demanding better,” Newman said in a news release.

Dan Snowberger, the Elizabeth School District’s superintendent, told The Denver Post that the district is aware that a former employee is alleging discrimination.

“The employee’s claims are not new and are part of a broader effort by the ACLU to attack the district because of a few decisions a vocal minority disagrees with,” Snowberger wrote in a statement. “The district has and will continue to defend itself in federal court from outside interests attempting to strong-arm the district¶¶Ňőap elected board — a board that was overly retained by the voters a few short weeks ago. The district intends to defend itself in court, and the facts will show that the individual’s employment ended because she failed to take the steps to secure the necessary licensure for the position, and because the position was one of several eliminated for cost-saving reasons during a fiscal exigency.”

Condry was hired as the dean of students at Elizabeth Middle School in June 2024. That August, she learned about a new district policy that restricted access to 19 library books the school board deemed “highly sensitive” — largely books written by or about people of color and LGBTQ people.

Some of the removed books — which are now back on shelves because of a court order — included “Beloved” and “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison, “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini and “#Pride: Championing LGBTQ Rights” by Rebecca Felix.

“The book ban was inherently discriminatory, and it was the ESD board’s goal in implementing the ban to suppress voices by Black and LGBTQIA+ authors and content that discussed race-related and LGBTQIA+ topics, characters and experiences,” the lawsuit states.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado sued the Elizabeth School District over the book policy in December.

When the school board requested feedback on the policy, Condry said she wrote a letter explaining how the book ban was “unethical” and “racist.” According to the lawsuit, Condry’s response was “passionate” but “professional.”

After Snowberger read Condry’s feedback, the lawsuit said he sent an email to all employees calling out Condry’s input as crossing the line and demanding “further disciplinary action.”

In October of 2024, the lawsuit said Condry was fired and told that her removal was budget-related.

“It was clear to Ms. Condry, however, that she was being terminated because she was a Black woman who dared to speak up and call the board racist for their decision to implement the book ban and for continually raising concerns about racism within ESD,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit alleged Condry was replaced by a white woman who supported the removal of the books from library shelves.

“It is time to end corruption, racism and discrimination in the Elizabeth School District,” Condry wrote in a news release. “It is now my time to take back my voice that was once silenced, and to speak up against the dishonest leadership that uses its power to erase the voices of diverse groups of people.”

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¶¶Ňőap 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.Ěý “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¶¶Ňőap 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.

Mary Dulacki, the department’s chief compliance officer, was fired June 5 after city officials said she was dishonest during an investigation into workplace misconduct that allegedly ranged from gossiping to mismanaging subordinates to speaking with a TV news reporter.

Dulacki, who has been a city employee for 17 years, has claimed the firing was retaliation after she filed a with the a year ago, according to a city letter of discipline.

Executive Director of Public Safety Armando Saldate denied in the nine-page letter that he fired Dulacki in retaliation.

“To the contrary, we received a complaint from one of the employees you directly supervised at the time alleging various perceived inappropriate actions on your part that we were obligated to investigate,” he wrote. “We hired a neutral outside investigator to investigate the allegations and make factual findings that we have relied upon in deciding to initiate the disciplinary process and to impose discipline.”

Dulacki and her attorney did not return requests for comment this week.

The misconduct investigation found that Dulacki spoke with after a Denver police officer was run over by a city fire truck during the Nuggets’ NBA championship celebration parade in June 2023. Maass obtained a copy of a draft after-action report about the incident and .

Maass filed an open records request for the report in February 2024, but a city records custodian told him it didn’t exist, which Saldate said “was appropriate in that only a draft report existed that had never been approved.”

Dulacki then told the records custodian that the custodian should assume Maass already had a copy of the report, according to the letter.

“You disclosed that you were having conversations with Mr. Maass on the side and advised her to assume Mr. Maass already had a copy of the draft after-action report. You then asked not to tell anyone that you were speaking with Mr. Maass on the side,” the disciplinary letter states.

When asked about the conversations during the subsequent misconduct investigation, Dulacki said she didn’t recall talking with the reporter or asking the custodian not to tell anyone about the conversations, the disciplinary letter states. Saldate found her statements were not credible.

Dulacki was also investigated over concerns that she mismanaged her subordinates, including by unfairly distributing work, failing to advocate for an employee’s advancement and failing to communicate with that employee clearly. Additionally, the letter states that Dulacki gossiped about a subordinate having an affair.

She denied gossiping during the misconduct investigation, which Saldate again considered to be dishonest.

He noted that Dulacki was in charge of making final disciplinary decisions for Denver police officers and firefighters, and that those first responders can be fired for dishonesty.

“It would be irresponsible for me to retain you in your role when it is your responsibility to decide whether to dismiss officers who are deceptive in their internal affairs interviews, and when your credibility is critical to your ability to testify effectively in all disciplinary appeal hearings,” Saldate wrote. “In addition, I can no longer employ someone at your level whose honesty and judgment I no longer to (sic) trust.”

It was not immediately clear Friday whether or how Dulacki’s gender-discrimination complaint was resolved. Katie O’Donnell, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Civil Rights Division, said she could not comment on the status, outcome or existence of complaints filed with the division.

In a May 12 letter, the head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division requested a broad swath of voter and election data from the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office — a request that potentially covered everything from surveillance footage and custody logs to completed paper ballots from previous elections. The civil rights division’s head, Harmeet Dhillon, wrote that the agency had received a complaint that Colorado wasn’t complying with a federal election statute that includes record retention.

The request — and the records it sought — is unprecedented, said Matt Crane, the executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association. The federal request was .

“It¶¶Ňőap really, really expansive,” Crane said. “I’ve never seen anything like this before, nor has anybody else that I know in this field.”

Secretary of State Jena Griswold said her office turned over some records to the agency, including two recent voter lists and a third document that included which Coloradans voted. Those are all public records that could be provided to anyone who asked, Griswold said Tuesday.

Griswold said her office either didn’t have access to other records that were requested, which are kept by individual counties, or her office didn’t believe the Justice Department had a legal basis for seeking them.

Crane and Griswold both said they thought the request was intended to help Peters, who was convicted last year of using someone else’s security badge in spring 2021 to give access to Mesa County’s elections system to a third party with ties to another prominent election denier, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell.

Griswold said the federal laws cited in the Justice Department’s letter were the same used by Peters’ defense to claim that she was only seeking to preserve election records, and Crane said he worried that the request would expand what would be considered an election record to back up Peters. The letter also came a week after President Donald Trump referred to Peters on social media as a “political prisoner” and called for her release.

Shortly after Trump returned to office in January, the Justice Department had also previously filed a “statement of interest” in Peters’ case, a sign of the agency’s interest in her conviction.

The Justice Department did not return an email Monday seeking comment.

On March 25, Griswold’s office received a separate letter from the law firm that Dhillon, the Justice Department official, had founded. The letter, sent on behalf of the Republican National Committee, also sought a broad selection of election records.

The expansive request from the Justice Department had several problems, Griswold said. For one, it erroneously referred to Colorado as a “commonwealth,” and it requested data dating back to November 2000. That was a typo, Griswold and Crane said, and was supposed to refer to the 2020 election that Trump has falsely claimed he won. The two officials took that as another tip-off that the request was intended to affect Peters.

Griswold said her office hasn’t heard from the Justice Department since it sent some records last month. Crane said that, to his knowledge, no county has received a similar letter from the agency seeking the records that Griswold’s office says it doesn’t have. Griswold has also not received any information about the complaint that formed the basis of the letter.

“We don’t even know what it means,” she said. “As far as we know, it¶¶Ňőap Donald Trump’s complaining on social media.”