Backers of this year’s legislation are confident they’ve hit the right balance, or at least landed on good first steps. But others worry the measures don’t go far enough.

Two measures capture the push-and-pull of the debate. would require a user to log their age when setting up a new device, such as a smartphone, to restrict or grant access to adult age-restricted apps or websites. The bill’s sponsors say they’re trying to land on the side of privacy by using age attestation, which means the user vouches for their age rather than proving it by handing over personal information, like IDs or facial scans, to the companies.

, meanwhile, would create new regulations for chatbots powered by artificial intelligence, with an emphasis on how they interact with users, especially children and teenagers.

The bill’s sponsors don’t seek to prohibit access to the emerging technology. But the bill would require the bot to give regular notice to users that they are interacting with a robot — not a sentient entity — among other provisions seeking to restrict sexually explicit content from the bots and give people who express suicidal ideas links to crisis support.

The bills have run into vocal opposition from people who think the measures don’t go far enough to protect children. They also still need to win approval from a traditionally tech-friendly governor who’s been wary of over-regulating the industry.

Cynthia Montoya, a Thornton mom, falls into the former category. Her 13-year-old daughter, Juliana Peralta, died by suicide in 2023 after being sexually groomed and exploited by a chatbot for months and after writing dozens of messages to the chatbot about suicide, she said. She is involved in a lawsuit against the chatbot company.

As written, the chatbot bill would give too much leniency to tech companies, Montoya said.

“These are kids that are still ordering off the children’s menu at the restaurant. And now, instead of making sure this doesn’t happen to begin with, we’re saying (we’ll) do what’s ‘technically feasible,’ ” Montoya said of lawmakers, describing the deference to companies that she said exploit children. “We should have never allowed these products to be released to kids in the first place. It’s like slapping a Band-Aid on a broken bone, after the fact.”

Both bills have cleared their first chamber in the legislature, but now they need to clear the second before they reach Gov. Jared Polis’ desk.

Polis spokesman Eric Maruyama said in a statement that he’s “focused on protecting innovation while helping parents keep youth safe and will review these bills if they reach his desk.”

Lawmaker pledges to ‘keep refining it’

Rep. Sean Camacho, a Denver Democrat sponsoring the chatbot bill, acknowledged a “political reality” in running the measure.

He, and others, would like to see stronger regulations. Camacho, along with Rep. Javier Mabrey, the other prime sponsor in the House, sought to thread the “really important needle” between different interest groups to achieve a bill that could be both implemented and enforced, Camacho said.

The lawmakers argued that it was better to have regulations now and then work next year with a new, possibly more regulation-friendly governor to pass more. The term-limited Polis is in his final year in office.

As the bill passed the House 40-24 on Tuesday, its backers had settled on a measure that would prohibit artificial intelligence companies from identifying their services as a licensed healthcare, legal accounting or financial professional; require the bots to provide regular reminders that users are interacting with a robot; and bar companies from incentivizing children to continue to engage with the chatbot or promote emotional dependence.

The bill would also require privacy and account setting options geared towards youth. In an amendment, lawmakers increased the per-violation penalty from $1,000 to $5,000.

“I think we have pushed incredibly far in this particular bill, and there’s still a long way to go,” Camacho said. “I think when you’re trying to regulate something that moves inherently faster than legislation ever could, it����ap going to be a moving target.”

Sponsors of both the chatbot and age-attestation bills point to similar provisions in other states, chiefly California — one of the preeminent tech hubs in the world — as models.

But rapidly evolving technology also means the laws must build off each other, said Jai Jaisimha, a co-founder of the . The coalition advocates for guardrails around AI and helped advise on Colorado’s chatbot legislation, as well as similar legislation elsewhere.

With the federal government showing limited interest in regulating AI — indeed, the Trump administration has sought — the task has fallen to states to set the standard for AI.

Jaisimha said Colorado’s provisions banning AI companies from claiming specific expertise, for example, would be more robust than what other states have passed, along with the reporting requirements for AI companies in the bill.

“Our organization feels like action is needed now,” Jaisimha said. “Given the scale of the public health crisis as it exists, anything that might help is worth doing.”

, a policy adviser on technology and law at the New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, called the chatbot bill and the age-attestation bill “directionally good” but shared concerns about whether they were strict enough. She did not work on the legislation and reviewed it at the request of The Denver Post.

For the chatbot bill, she praised its requirements that the AI programs must clearly and frequently identify that they are robots. The restrictions on certain content, such as sexually explicit material and attempts to prevent emotional dependence, could face challenges on free-speech grounds, she warned.

Olaizola Rosenblat said she expected they’d survive strict scrutiny for possible First Amendment violations from the courts, but it would still involve a legal fight. In a recent example, a federal judge in Denver blocked a 2024 state law requiring social media companies to warn young users about the dangers of spending too much time on the platforms over First Amendment concerns. The state is appealing the ruling.

“If Colorado leads on this, not just on the bill itself, but the litigation that comes after … that would set the tone for not just the rest of the country, but also internationally,” Olaizola Rosenblat said. “Every country is trying to figure out the harms (caused by AI chatbots). They’re seeing children who commit suicide because of prodding by the chatbots, and they want to regulate.”

Opponents say legislature is ‘being gaslit’

For some, however, the chatbot bill is worse than no bill.

Montoya, the Thornton mom, said she had done everything she could think of to keep her daughter safe online. She checked Juliana’s text messages and accounts on social media. But she didn’t realize the chatbot Juliana was using was embedded in an app her daughter was using to write scripts.

Juliana was a member of the National Junior Honor Society and a volunteer at agencies that help the less fortunate. She was someone who spent an evening taking YouTube Spanish lessons so that she could invite a new classmate to play in the student����ap native language. A “perfect example of human kindness,” Montoya said.

The chatbot had written things to Juliana that Montoya describes as “disgusting” and “vulgar” and as “sexual exploitation.” A forensic analysis of Juliana’s devices after her death found the eighth-grader had to look up what some of the words used by the bot meant, Montoya said.

Juliana shared suicidal thoughts with the AI bot dozens of times, with no pushback or alerts, Montoya said.

The legislation would require tech companies to take “technically feasible” action to prevent AI chatbots from engaging in sexually explicit conversations with minors — giving tech companies too much say in how they’d self-regulate, Montoya said. Enforcement of the bill would also rely on parents knowing enough about the measure, and their kids’ tech habits, to report possible violations to the Colorado Attorney General’s Office.

Montoya worries too many families will realize problems like that with the bill only after tragedy strikes.

The bill also would require bots to respond to interactions indicating suicidal ideas or self-harm by referring them to crisis services hotlines. Montoya voiced more support for that provision and expressed hope that the Senate would narrow the bill to focus solely on that — and all but require lawmakers to focus on the sexual exploitation part of the problem in follow-up legislation.

“My fear is it’s going to pass and then when we come back next year, and we try to put strong regulation in place … that the people who are here to serve us will say, ‘I heard this last session, we talked ad nauseam about this, we mulled this and we’re done with chatbot regulation,’ ” Montoya said. In an aside, she said: “This is not strong regulation. I want to make that abundantly clear.”

Dawn Reinfeld, the executive director of the youth advocacy organization Blue Rising, which opposes the measure, released a policy brief Thursday that warned about “unclear and vague concepts” that she worried would make the bill unenforceable.

“Most people in the legislature agree that something needs to be done, and most of the lawmakers really want to protect kids,” Reinfeld said. “And I think they’re, quite frankly, being gaslit with these bills — to say that these bills will protect kids when they really won’t.”

Lawmakers softened age proposal

The chatbot and age-attestation bills are being run separately, but they fall in a similar realm of working to protect kids from some of the harms of technology.

The age-attestation bill cleared its first House committee Thursday, setting it up for consideration by the full House in the coming weeks. But the sponsors, Democratic Reps. Amy Paschal and Naquetta Ricks, put through a so-called “strike below” amendment that effectively rewrote the measure.

Paschal, of Colorado Springs, said the rewrite kept the spirit of the measure that passed the Senate earlier while trying to encompass broader concerns about open-source software and the ability for people to choose how they provide the required attestation to their age. Another amendment adopted to the bill sought to address multiuser accounts, chiefly by having parental and subordinate accounts.

The bill would require users to input their age range into commercial operating systems, which would then use that information to validate if the user can access age-restricted materials, like pornography, and apps.

Backers said they wanted to err on the side of protecting privacy by letting users decide which age bracket to choose. The device will only send a simple “yes/no”-type signal to validate whether the user is old enough to access the age-restricted material.

Last year, the sponsors of a bill that would’ve required age verification to access pornographic materials online killed their measure over threats that Polis would veto it over privacy concerns. That same year, Polis vetoed a broader bill that sought to implement new regulations for social media companies that Polis felt would infringe on First Amendment and privacy rights.

Paschal said this bill takes a different approach than requiring hard verification from users or relying on social media companies to analyze users’ behavior to estimate their ages. The bill also puts responsibility on parents to mark their children as of age or let them be treated like adults, Paschal said.

“If the parent wants to mark their kid as an adult, and they’re happy with that, or they want to give their kid the phone and let them mark themselves as an adult, there’s nothing stopping that. That����ap parental choice,” Paschal said. “Of course, that kind of defeats the purpose, but that is their choice.”

The bill survived the House business affairs committee on a near-party line vote, with Democratic Rep. Bob Marshall joining Republicans in voting against it. Opponents raised concerns of holes in the age attestation process, and they said the bill still requires users to give their personal data to tech companies. The bill next goes to the House floor for debate.

The federal government announced Friday that that xAI filed earlier this month. The company alleges that Colorado’s rules, which seek to prevent discrimination by AI systems that have a consequential say in decisions like bank lending or education enrollment, violate the First Amendment because it requires xAI to “embed the State’s preferred views into the very fabric of AI systems.”

The suit also alleges that the rules are too vague and that they seek to regulate products outside of Colorado’s state boundaries. The company owns Grok, an AI chatbot, as well as the social platform X, formerly Twitter.

The regulations were passed nearly two years ago, but they have not yet gone into place. Their effective date has been delayed until June, but they may never kick in. The rules have been roundly criticized by both the tech industry and the groups seeking to regulate AI, and state lawmakers are preparing to take their third stab at rewriting them.

Legislation to pursue those reforms is expected in the coming days.

Still, the Justice Department has joined xAI’s suit, alleging that the pending rules are unconstitutional and that they “attempt to force discriminatory ideology on the AI industry,” despite their intent to stop algorithms from discriminating against students and job applicants.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to strike down the regulations.

Colorado officials have not yet filed a response to xAI’s initial allegations. Lawrence Pacheco, a spokesman for Attorney General Phil Weiser, declined to comment on the pending litigation Friday morning. He said the office would “do our talking in our court papers.”

A jury in Denver County Court found , 53, guilty of sharing the personal information of a protected person online after she repeated a Denver police commander’s home address during a livestreamed protest and suggested her followers should meet up there so they could “have a pig roast party,” according to an arrest affidavit.

State law prohibits a person from sharing the personal information of police officers online if the person knows that doing so “poses an imminent and serious threat” to the safety of officers or their families. The law protecting police officers’ information has been on the books for more than two decades, but drew renewed attention in 2021 and 2022 when legislators expanded the doxxing protections to other professions, including health care workers, animal control officers and code enforcement officers.

Benson appears to be the first person in the state convicted under the anti-doxxing statute, said Jamie Hubbard, her attorney. She and Benson believe the criminal prosecution was unconstitutional retaliation for her criticism of the Denver Police Department, including in June.

The misdemeanor conviction can be punished with up to a year in jail.

“This commander didn’t like that she was someone who spoke out critically about the police, didn’t like that she sued,” Hubbard said. “So he sees this opportunity to retaliate against her, and he took it.”

Denver police spokesman Sean Towle declined to comment on the case and said had declined to comment as well. Denver District Attorney John Walsh said in a statement that Benson committed a crime, and Denver jurors recognized that.

“We vigorously support all Coloradans’ First Amendment expression, but, as the jury found, the defendant����ap conduct in this case stepped across the line,” he said in the statement.

Benson and Hubbard are not the only ones questioning the validity of the law — the statute is also facing a constitutional challenge in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in a separate federal lawsuit in which a Colorado state trooper accused a process server of violating the anti-doxxing law by including the trooper’s home address in a court filing.

“These are the types of laws that proponents can make sound good when they march them through the legislature, but which 100% of the time get repurposed to the suppression of people’s constitutional rights,” said Adam Frank, a civil rights attorney not involved in either case.

‘A complete and total joke’

Benson made her “pig roast” comments on Sept. 3 at the District 3 Police Station at 1625 S. University Blvd. Benson was livestreaming her protest at the police station when she asked her followers to look up Bell’s home address so they could host a pig roast there. They obliged, finding an address in Centennial. Benson repeated the address and then reiterated her suggestion on the livestream.

“I just wanted to advertise a big party at a pig house. Pigs get together and do pig party stuff,” she said, according to the publicly available affidavit, which includes Bell’s home address and notes that “pig” is a derogatory slang term for a police officer.

In an interview Thursday, Benson said the idea was not serious.

“It was a complete and total joke,” she said. “That����ap what roasts are. Parodies, comedies, satire, sarcasm, hyperbole. That is exactly what that was.”

But at trial, Bell testified about how Benson’s words made him feel, Hubbard said. CBS Colorado, , said Bell established a safety plan that included increased patrols around his home and the installation of a security camera.

“It is tough for a jury who sits in a courtroom and listens to someone testify about their fears, fears for their family, how they were emotionally impacted by what someone else said,” Hubbard said. “It����ap hard for a jury to set that aside and think, ‘Well, that is what the First Amendment is for.'”

Benson will appeal after she is sentenced on May 8, Hubbard said. In the meantime, Benson said she is losing sleep and spending a significant amount of money on the case.

“They’re definitely achieving the goal of chilling my speech, because I am consumed now with every word coming out of my mouth being taken out of context in public settings,” she said, adding that she recently decided not to attend a police community meeting as she typically would have. “I was going to go, and at the last minute, I said to myself, ‘You can’t. They’re successful at getting you prosecuted over lies.'”

Colorado lawmakers expanded the anti-doxxing law after the COVID-19 pandemic, when a number of professionals, particularly in health care, experienced increased harassment. Lawmakers pitched the protections as a way to shield professionals in public service roles from threats.

“As well-intentioned as the law might have been, it has clearly been bastardized and used in a way that violates some pretty fundamental constitutional rights,” said Andy McNulty, an attorney who has represented Benson in past lawsuits.

Challenges to anti-doxxing laws

Three federal courts have found that citizens have a right to publicly identify police officers; attempts to restrict that kind of speech have been found unconstitutional in Washington, Florida and California, said Jason Kennedy, the attorney who is challenging Colorado’s law in federal court.

“Rather (than) proscribing statements that are intended by the speaker to be threatening, the statute criminalizes speech when the speaker ‘reasonably should know’ of a threat posed by others,” Kennedy said. “That is a rather broad and vague standard, and the General Assembly exceeded the limits of its police powers in violation of the First Amendment.”

In that case, Andrew Scott, a professional process server, sought to serve a subpoena from the Colorado Department of Revenue on Charles Hiller, a state trooper, in 2021, according to court records. When he could not connect with Hiller, Scott completed an affidavit of service refusal in which he described his efforts to serve the subpoena and included Hiller’s home address, among other information.

Hiller then pursued professional complaints against Scott on the grounds that the affidavit violated the state’s anti-doxxing law. Scott was never criminally charged, but later sued El Paso County District Attorney Michael Allen over the law.

Scott alleged in the lawsuit that he wanted to create a website dedicated to showing police officer misconduct — including posting video showing his efforts to serve the subpoena on Hiller that included some of the trooper’s personal information — but that he was afraid to do so because he might face criminal prosecution under the state’s anti-doxxing law, according to case filings. He sought a declaration that the law was unconstitutional.

Senior Assistant County Attorney Bryan Schmid argued in court filings that Scott failed to show the law is unconstitutional and suggested that Scott could create his website and post his videos with redactions to hide the personal information in the clips.

“Certainly, even with the personal information blurred and/or redacted from the video and affidavit of service, enough information or dialogue would remain to prove his version of the facts and provide him with the vindication he so desperately wants,” Schmid wrote.

In Scott����ap case, the two sides are awaiting the judge’s final ruling on the constitutional issues.

The ruling, in a case filed by the Colorado GOP, did not fully strike down , which opened up primaries to participation by party faithful and unaffiliated voters alike. But in the decision issued on Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Philip A. Brimmer wrote that the law puts a “severe burden” on parties that want to opt out of the open primaries.

He ruled that part of the law violates the First Amendment’s protections of the freedom of association.

The law says that if a political party wants to close its primary so that only its own registered voters can participate, 75% of that party’s central committee must vote in support of the change. That threshold is unconstitutionally high, Brimmer wrote.

“The background and origin of the three-fourths opt-out provision is unclear,” Brimmer, who is based in Denver, wrote. “What is clear is that it constitutes an unusual and difficult barrier for the central committee to overcome, more akin to a hurdle to amend a foundational governing document, such as the United States Constitution, than a traditional means of regulating political parties.”

He noted that unaffiliated voters’ share of the Colorado electorate has grown, and they now make up a majority of registered voters in the state.

Brimmer’s ruling does not set a new threshold for parties to hit, should they want to close their primaries, and his order does not give specific direction for how the state or parties should proceed.

The decision also doesn’t appear to impact the upcoming summer primaries. The state GOP meets April 11 for its state assembly, where it will nominate some candidates for those contests, which are set for June 30.

The state GOP filed the lawsuit against the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office in 2023 under the leadership of conservative hardliner Dave Williams. He had blasted Prop 108 as a “radical leftwing” effort and argued that closing the primaries was vital to protecting true Republican candidates.

Representatives for the state Republican and Democratic parties did not return messages seeking comment Wednesday.

Kent Thiry, the millionaire donor who supported Prop 108, criticized what he called a “terrible, tunnel-vision decision” in a statement Wednesday. He said he hoped Brimmer’s ruling would be appealed.

“This decision tramples on the voting rights of a majority of Colorado voters, namely the independent voters,” Thiry wrote. “Voters own elections, not the parties.”

In a statement, the secretary of state’s spokesman John Magnino said unaffiliated voters should be able to vote in primary contests.

“Based on our reading, the court has not disturbed the plans in place for the upcoming June 2026 primary election,” Magnino said. “We are disappointed with this decision and are evaluating next steps in consultation with the attorney general’s office.”

Brimmer previously rejected the GOP’s request to close primaries to unaffiliated voters in 2024, and the lawsuit dragged on for another two years — outlasting Williams and nearly outliving his successor, current GOP chairwoman Brita Horn. Horn is stepping down as party chair later this month.

The new ruling would apply to both the Republican and Democratic parties in future years, should Democrats later choose to close their primaries, too. No party has yet opted out of the primaries under Prop 108’s provision, but Republicans have tried at least three times, according to Brimmer’s ruling.

In September 2023, more than 64% of the party’s central committee who voted on the motion supported closing the primaries, falling well short of the threshold.

The ruling could have far-reaching implications for the state Republican Party, should it choose to close its candidate-selection process only to its own registered voters. The GOP has lost significant ground in the state over the past decade, as Democrats have won control of most statewide offices and secured near-supermajorities in the state House and the Senate.

Still, right-wing conservatives like Williams have argued that the party needs to tack further to the right, even as the state turns deeper shades of blue. Closing state primaries, those figures argue, would ensure that more strictly conservative candidates make it on the ballot, which in turn would activate more Republican voters.

More moderate Republicans, meanwhile, have said the primaries should remain open to unaffiliated voters. In the decade since Prop 108 was passed, an ever-increasing share of voters has registered as unaffiliated, and moderates contend that the party should be as open to the state’s changing voter base as possible.

Brimmer wrote that roughly 100,000 unaffiliated voters participated in Republican primaries in 2018. By 2022, that total had more than doubled to 231,000, accounting for 37.1% of ballots cast in those contests that year. In some counties, the unaffiliated voters rivaled the number of Republican voters participating in the GOP’s primaries in 2022 and 2024.

The Human Rights Defense Center filed the lawsuit in the Colorado District Court to challenge the censorship of mail sent to Weld County Jail inmates and its ability to appeal the censorship claims, with the Weld County Commissioners, Reams, Undersheriff Donnie Patch, Captain Marcy Roles-Foos and several jail employees named as defendants, according to the complaint.

The center also petitioned the court to order jail officials to stop the censorship immediately as the material it sent to inmates poses no threat to jail security or inmate safety, according to a motion for preliminary injunction filed alongside the lawsuit.

The Weld County Sheriff’s Office is not able to comment on the lawsuit pending the ongoing litigation, department spokesperson Melissa Chesmore said.

Between August 2025 and March, the center mailed inmates at least 114 educational publications and other mail items that were censored by jail officials, according to the lawsuit. All 114 pieces of correspondence were censored and sent back to the center as rejected mail, return to sender mail or unauthorized packages.

The returned mail sometimes came with reasons for the censorship, such as the fact that the mail was books, news clippings or internet articles, which are prohibited by the jail, according to the lawsuit. The center was not given the opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions.

The center wants the court to order the jail to give it an opportunity to appeal the mail rejections as well as a meaningful reason for the rejection, according to the injunction motion.

The center in its suit claims the censorship has violated its First Amendment right to free speech and its 14th Amendment right to due process by censoring and rejecting material it sends to prisoners and by not allowing the center to appeal the censorship decisions.

The center’s mission is to educate prisoners who are seeking legal advice and information about their rights, according to the lawsuit, and part of the way it does this is sending books, magazines, periodicals and other information to inmates. The center also states that it sends information to thousands of correctional facilities across the country, but Weld County Jail states it is against its mail policy, according to the complaint. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that inmates have the right to read and correspond with the outside world, according to the lawsuit.

Books, magazines, newspapers, and material that advocates for violence or that would compromise jail safety are some of the reasons material may be censored by the jail, according to the Weld County Jail Detention Manual.

In the center’s suit, it also stated its publications and mail to inmates pose no threat to the safety and security of the jail and that the prisoners often have no other means of learning more about their legal and civil rights.

The center is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against jail officials, as well as compensatory and punitive damages, according to the lawsuit.

An 8-1 high court majority sided with a Christian counselor in Colorado Springs who argues the state law’s ban on talk therapy violates the First Amendment. The justices agreed that the law raises free speech concerns, but didn’t strike it down. They sent the case back to a lower court to decide whether it meets a legal standard that few laws pass.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, said Colorado’s law “censors speech based on viewpoint.” The First Amendment, he wrote, “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

Gorsuch’s opinion drew support from liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

A state could similarly not ban talk therapy designed to affirm a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, Kagan wrote. “Once again, because the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward,” she wrote.

In a solo dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that states should be free to regulate health care, even if that means incidental restrictions on speech. The decision, Jackson wrote, “opens a dangerous can of worms” that “threatens to impair states’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect.”

Gov. Jared Polis, in a statement, decried “conversion therapy” as inhumane and said the high court’s ruling will restrict Colorado’s ability to protect LGBTQ people’s right to medical treatment.

“Colorado is for everyone, no matter who you are,” Polis said. “Conversion therapy doesn’t work, can seriously harm youth, and Coloradans should beware before turning over their hard-earned money to a scam. I am evaluating the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and working to figure out how to better protect LGBTQ youth and free speech in Colorado.”

Latest religious discrimination case to reach court

The decision is the latest in a line of recent cases in which the justices have while taking a skeptical view of LGBTQ+ rights.

Counselor Kaley Chiles, with support from President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, said the law wrongly bars her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy for kids.

Chiles contends her approach is different from “conversion therapy” practices from decades ago, like shock therapy. Her attorneys argued that the ban makes it hard for parents to find therapists willing to discuss gender identity with kids unless the counseling affirms transition.

“This ruling means Colorado cannot insert itself into the counseling room and silence important views that clients want to hear,” Chiles said in a video call with reporters. “…Kids deserve better than a one-way path to dangerous body-altering drugs and surgeries, and more counselors should say so.”

But health organizations around the world — including the , the and the — have denounced “conversion therapy” and pointed to 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.

“Conversion therapy is unsafe, ineffective and rooted in the dangerous lie that LGBTQ+ kids must be ‘fixed,’” said Claudia Pérez, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ director of public affairs. “…This ruling is not an isolated blow; it is part of a sweeping and coordinated effort to undermine LGBTQ+ safety and autonomy across the country, echoing recent decisions restricting evidence‑based care for transgender young people.”

Colorado argued in the Supreme Court case that its law does allow wide-ranging conversations about gender identity and sexual orientation and exempts religious ministries. The state says the measure simply bars using therapy to try to “convert” LGBTQ+ people to heterosexuality or traditional gender expectations, a practice that has been scientifically discredited and linked to serious harm.

Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement that “conversion therapy” has long been rejected as “unsafe and ineffective,” and that the state’s law is meant to protect minors.

“For generations, states have set and enforced standards to ensure that licensed professionals provide safe and appropriate care,” Weiser said. “We strongly disagree with the court����ap reasoning and are carefully reviewing the decision to assess its full impact on Colorado law and on our responsibility to protect consumers and patients.”

The law doesn’t violate the First Amendment, Colorado argued in the case, because therapy is different from other types of speech since it’s a form of health care that the state has a responsibility to regulate.

Advocates for LGBTQ+ people condemned the ruling, as well as “conversion therapy.”

Tamora Tanniehill, director of programs and services of Rocky Mountain Equality, said she was “sickened” by the ruling.

“Holding state regulations on pseudoscientific practices such as conversion therapy to a strict scrutiny standard is far-reaching, unethical and poses meaningful risks to the ability of state governments and professional associations to regulate dangerous and disproven medical practices,” she said. “This decision is another strategic step to further dismantle and undermine life-saving professional and healthcare standards that protect privacy and families’ abilities to make health care decisions.”

‘A significant win for free speech’

The 2019 law carries the possibility of fines and license suspension, but no one has been sanctioned under it. The ruling is expected to eventually make similar laws in other states unenforceable.

Chiles was represented by the 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 successfully challenged Colorado’s anti-discrimination law because she didn’t want to work with same-sex couples.

“Kids deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made,” Alliance Defending Freedom chief legal counsel Jim Campbell said in a statement Tuesday morning. “The U.S. Supreme Court����ap decision today is a significant win for free speech, common sense and families desperate to help their children.”

Colorado legislators are sponsoring a new bill that would allow people to pursue civil action against licensed mental health professionals or anyone who hired them for damages sustained while undergoing “conversion therapy.” The bill, , would allow the victim to bring the civil action at any time.

Rep. Alex Valdez, D-Denver, and Rep. Karen McCormick, D-Longmont, the House sponsors of the bill, shared their disappointment with the Supreme Court’s ruling Tuesday.

“We will say it loud and clear — conversion therapy does not work, and many mental health and medical organizations agree that conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful,” the statement read. “The LGBTQ+ community already faces higher rates of depression and suicide, and conversion therapy only makes things worse.”

Twenty-three states have laws barring health care providers from offering “conversion therapy” for minors, and another four have some restrictions, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an advocacy group that tracks policies that impact LGBTQ+ people.

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

Jered Morgan took to Facebook late last year to criticize the and its chief of police, Jonathan Lange, after drivers started receiving hefty fines for speeding along a nearby Weld County road, according to a federal lawsuit filed in the District of Colorado.

Fake profiles he believed belonged to Lange and his wife started about the legality of the fines, Morgan told The Denver Post. When he commented on the town of Kersey’s Facebook page directly in December 2025, his comments were removed and he was blocked, the lawsuit alleged.

“I was just kinda shocked,” Morgan said. “It was pretty blatant that they were trying to censor me.”

The tickets, generated by radar equipment, charged drivers $340 for speeding 25 mph or more over the posted speed limit, . But caps the fines municipalities can charge for photo speeding tickets at $40 on regular roads and $80 in school or construction zones.

“In response to the firestorm caused by these actions, Kersey actively sought to silence its critics online. Morgan was among those critics,” the lawsuit stated.

The town’s posted social media policy allowed officials to delete all comments “deemed crude, inappropriate, misleading, or hostile” and to block any users who repeatedly posted comments that were removed for those reasons, according to the lawsuit. Morgan’s attorneys alleged in the lawsuit that the policy discriminated against content and viewpoints, violating the First Amendment.

“These actions were not taken with malice or with the intent of limiting public discourse,” Kersey Mayor Nathan Roth and Town Manager Stacy Brown said in a joint statement. “Rather, Town staff acted in accordance with the Town’s social media guidelines and with a focus on maintaining a safe and respectful online environment.”

Morgan’s account “could not clearly be identified and was believed to potentially be an individual who had previously been subject to a restraining order for the harassment of a Town employee,” the statement continued.

The town settled the lawsuit outside of court, agreeing to pay Morgan $45,000 and revise its social media policy, according to a document provided to The Denver Post by Morgan’s attorneys. Kersey officials will only delete comments or block users who “post true threats or fighting words, post obscenities, or violate any state or federal law through their posting,” the document stated. The town will also add annual training on First Amendment principles for Kersey employees.

Town officials agreed to the settlement to dismiss the case and deny any liability or wrongdoing, the document states. The case was dismissed on Thursday, court records show.

Re: “Agents helping with airport security,” March 24 news story

The TSA officers who have remained on the job through the asinine shutdown of Homeland Security should be offered a substantial bonus once the shutdown is over. Maybe delay bombings in Iran for one day and use those funds to reward the TSA officers.

Alan Aldrich, Thornton

These government shutdowns continue to be problematic and affect all of us. They are now the standard for our elected officials. Our government employees, such as TSA, should not have to look for other jobs because our elected officials aren’t interested in compromise.

I have 3 suggestions for laws Congress should pass.

1. When a shutdown occurs, it’s only Congress members who don’t get paid.

2. When the government shutdown is over, Congress doesn’t get back pay.

3. Congress needs to have term limits: Two terms in the Senate and three or four terms in the House. This would be on par with many state legislative bodies.

Alan P. Aboaf, Centennial

Religion spawns division and wars

Something not mentioned about the current wars is that they are largely religious in nature. That should be a warning for us. Religions and their gods do not get along. Even within faiths, the interpretation of the sacred books can vary. Protestants in the United States have many denominations. Islam has two major sects that are often in conflict.

It was with good cause that the writers of our Constitution included the separation of church and state. Once a religion gains ascendance, it creates a horrible blood-rendering state. There are too many examples of religion trying to control all of us, and only for their ends, not ours.

You see the pictures of bowed heads, hands on the president����ap shoulders in the Oval Office and the other worldly atmosphere in the gaudy room. These are the people urging greater wars so as to cause the return of their god. They also intend to strangle us with their laws and beliefs: no abortions, the ten commandments in every classroom, and a Secretary of “War” who uses scripture to justify the killing of thousands.

When asked what was meant by the First Amendment regarding religion, President Thomas Jefferson referred to “a wall.” Total separation.

Religion should be banned from public and governmental places and ceremonies, and taxed as the businesses they are.

As an atheist, there is a verse in the New Testament that I think all religious people should follow. It is Matthew 6:6. In brief, it says those who wish to pray should go into their closets and close the doors.

Mack Hitch, Sterling

The Cuban leaders aren’t suffering with the people

We hear a lot of wailing and moaning these days about how much the Cuban people are suffering: food shortages, medicine shortages, energy shortages, blackouts. It seems to never end.

However, I’m sure the Cuban Communist ruling elite are not suffering. Like all communist dictatorships, and all dictatorships in general, I’m sure the ruling elite have all the food, medicine, energy and lighting they want.

It is too bad for the Cuban people that the communist rulers disarmed the populace after the revolution ended in January of 1959. Just imagine how things would be different for the Cuban people if they had the means of securing a government that was for the people and of the people, rather than a hereditary communist (ie, Castro-centric) dictatorship.

Richard D. VanOrsdale, Broomfield

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.

Re: “Palantir’s exit is the warning smoke,” Feb. 21 commentary

Plantir’s exit is the warning smoke. There is more than just smoke. The canary in the coal mine has croaked. Colorado ranks fifth in the country for outbound moves.

The progressive left that controls the State of Colorado has made it difficult, if not impossible, to live here. Our property taxes are 10% higher than last year. The Democrats are drafting a backdoor tax increase by modifying the state’s tax laws. The fees assessed are a death by a thousand little taxes. According to the , Colorado is the sixth-most regulated state in the country.

Want proof? Wait until you must replace your furnace. Last year, the average cost was $4,500 to $6,500. With the new regulations, it is or higher.

Traffic regulations are another example. Traffic is being reduced to one lane for bike lanes that no one uses.

And then there is the higher minimum wage. No one wants to pay $20 for a hamburger. When your next favorite restaurant closes, thank the governor.

And let����ap not forget that the Democratic left can’t stand law enforcement. In 2020, Senate Bill created a $25,000 personal liability for cops doing their job. And now the Democrats want to ban someone from serving their community if they previously . But if you break the law, you’re not going to jail anytime soon.

Unless the Democrats change course, the time to leave Colorado is now.

Jeff Jasper, Westminster

Palantir, will we even miss you?

Re: “Palantir changed address twice in February,” Feb 19 news story

It’s certainly ironic that Palantir should cite climate change in its SEC filing as one of the reasons it’s leaving Denver for Florida, especially given its support for this climate-denying administration.

Martin Berliner, Greenwood Village

Re: “Politicians caught between ICE’s violence, Palantir’s money, and the voters they represent,” Feb. 22 commentary

“More members of Congress are likely to follow suit and return their donations as the company and its political contributions come under more public scrutiny. These donations, while welcome, raise a deeper and more troubling question: Why is a company that powers mass surveillance and immigrant enforcement so deeply embedded in our political system in the first place?”

Blame the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC. The Court found that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This opened the door for businesses to donate to political campaigns.

Remember when Antonin Scalia died, and Mitch McConnell refused a hearing to replace him, so that the next President could select Scalia’s replacement? It was close to the 2016 election and McConnell wanted to protect the Citizens United ruling.

There needs to be a constitutional amendment to overturn this travesty. The only way to do it is to vote straight line for Democrats in future elections. It takes forever to get a constitutional amendment passed. Amendments by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or by a national convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. Ratification requires approval by three-fourths of state legislatures or state conventions.

The solution is very difficult to achieve, but it has to happen. Palantir is the model for why Citizens United is such a horrible ruling. Republicans need to get a spine and join Democrats to end it, once and for all.

As for Palantir leaving Denver, good riddance.

Mike Filion, Lakewood

What’s in a name?

Re: “Secretary on ‘freedom’ tour,” Feb. 24 photo

I’d just like to remind The Denver Post that the United States has a secretary of defense, not a secretary of war.

And if you don’t believe that, you can just go jump in the Gulf of America.

Robert Priddy, Westminster

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.

His order requires Denver Police Department officers to intervene and detain ICE agents if they see any using “excessive force.” It also bans the federal agents from using city-owned property for their operations.

Standing in front of the City and County Building in downtown Denver, Johnston told reporters that his goal with the order wasn’t to provoke President Donald Trump. He said he didn’t have any information about whether ICE or the Trump administration intended to send an influx of agents to the city anytime soon.

“My first job is to run this city,” he said. “But in today’s America, that means answering questions from our residents about what happens if ICE troops descend on our city.”

Johnston has watched closely as the Trump administration has sent thousands of federal officers into Minneapolis in recent months. Protesters there have frequently clashed with ICE agents and other federal officers as they carried out their work and detained people.

Tensions came to a head last month when federal agents shot and killed Renée Good and Alex Pretti in separate incidents. While the Trump administration quickly claimed those actions were necessary because of an immediate threat to their officers, bystander videos of both incidents have called those narratives into question.

Local and state officials in Minnesota tangled with federal officials both over who would investigate the incidents and the Trump administration’s call for local authorities to cooperate with the enforcement operations. Agencies began drawing down the federal presence in Minneapolis in recent weeks.

On Thursday, Denver Police Chief Ron Thomas, along with other city leaders, stood behind Johnston during his announcement, supporting the new order.

“This executive order makes it clear that we will protect all of our residents, and the federal agents are expected to follow local laws and public safety regulations,” he said.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

City Attorney Miko Brown said during the news conference that the order is constitutional.

“Setting clear legal boundaries is not an act of defiance, it’s responsible governance,” she said.

She clarified that the order would prohibit federal agents from entering or using facilities like the city’s overnight shelters, community centers, libraries and city-run arenas like the Denver Coliseum.

In a news release about the order, Johnston’s office said “police will use their established de-escalation protocols to protect peaceful protesters, their First Amendment rights, and ensure public health, welfare, and safety.”

The order also says DPD will take responsibility for conducting investigations of reported legal violations, “regardless of whether a federal investigation occurs,” according to the release. Denver’s officers will refer felony-level cases to the Denver District Attorney’s Office or the state attorney general.

Johnston said the new rules will pair with an ordinance the City Council is poised to pass next week. It would prohibit all law enforcement officers, including ICE and other federal agents, from covering their faces during detention and arrests. It’s a measure that the Department of Homeland Security called “despicable” and a “flagrant attempt to endanger our officers” in a statement this week.

Council President Amanda Sandoval also stood behind the mayor during Thursday’s event.

“ICE has been here,” she said. “This is an order to protect the residents of Denver and to create clarity for something that is already going on.”

Federal agencies have carried out ongoing operations in the Denver area since last year, but not on the same scale as cities like Chicago and Minneapolis have seen in recent months.

Denver, nearby Aurora and Colorado as a whole have been a focus for the president during his second term. He has threatened the cities and the state multiple times with increased immigration enforcement and the withdrawal of federal dollars.

Last year, Republicans in Congress even threatened to have Johnston arrested.

When asked Thursday if his order, which , could goad Trump into focusing even more on the city, Johnston said that wasn’t his intent.

“Our goal is not to provoke but to protect,” he said.