A Colorado prosecutor said Wednesday that the officer has been charged with third-degree assault and criminal mischief following an investigation into the treatment of a protester in October.

U.S. border protection officer charged with assault after southern Colorado ICE protest

Multiple videos show a masked federal agent seizing a 57-year-old woman, who says she was put in a chokehold, during the protest in Durango.

Colorado is among several states to prohibit or severely limit the use of chokeholds and neck restraints by police officers. But immunity provisions under the U.S. Constitution and federal law limit the reach of local authorities in prosecuting federal agents.

Here’s what to know:

Investigations underway in Minnesota and Chicago

The Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics have spurred an array of investigations by state and local authorities.

Earlier this month, a federal with two counts of second-degree assault by a county prosecutor in Minnesota amid investigations into the actions of several officers during the immigration crackdown .

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Gregory Donnell Morgan Jr. is accused of pointing his gun at occupants of a car after pulling alongside them on a Minneapolis-area highway. Investigators say Morgan said he feared for his safety after the vehicle swerved in front of him.

Minnesota officials also have for investigations into three shootings during the crackdown, including those that resulted in the deaths of and .

Outside Chicago, an off-duty ICE agent has been charged with misdemeanor battery for throwing to the ground a 68-year-old protester who was filming him at a gas station in December. The Homeland Security Department that oversees ICE says the agent acted in self-defense.

In California, the shooting death of 43-year-old Keith Porter by an off-duty ICE agent on New Year’s Eve has prompted protests and calls for an independent investigation.

Federal officers and the supremacy clause

Federal law enforcement officers have broad legal protections when acting in the course of their official duties, and the Justice Department has taken a hard line against state efforts to arrest or prosecute federal agents.

Late last year, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said arrests of federal officers performing their duties would be “illegal and futile,” citing the Constitution’s supremacy clause and federal law.

Legal experts say those protections are significant but not absolute and that the supremacy clause does not provide blanket immunity.

In a statement on the Colorado charges, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said states do not have the authority to investigate such cases.

“Federal officers acting in the course of their duties can only be investigated by other Federal agencies,” the statement said.

Conduct by ICE officers is under additional scrutiny amid a rapid hiring spree and .

Flashpoint in Colorado mountain town

The altercation in Colorado arose from demonstrations over the detention on Oct. 27 of three Colombian asylum-seekers -- a man and two children — while they were on their way to school in the morning. In late October, protesters gathered outside an ICE facility in Durango, a college town and destination for outdoor recreation in the San Juan Mountains of southwestern Colorado.

Multiple videos show a masked federal agent placing Franci Stagi in what she described as a chokehold. Chokeholds have been at the center of public discourse and state legislative initiatives about what constitutes an unreasonable use of force since died in New York in 2014 after he was put in a chokehold by a police officer.

Stagi, a retired hypnotherapist, said she reached for the agent¶¶Òőap shoulder to get his attention and that he then grabbed her by the hair, put her neck in the crook of his arm and carried her across the street by her head before throwing her down an embankment next to the street.

Court documents allege that Customs and Border Protection officer Nicholas Rice committed third-degree assault by causing bodily injury to Stagi, but the documents don’t describe how she was injured or make mention of a chokehold. Court documents didn’t list any attorney as representing the officer.

A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which launched its own investigation, didn’t immediately respond to questions about the charges.

Stagi says she’s disappointed Rice was charged with less serious crimes but hopes the prosecution sends a message that immigration officers can’t tackle people indiscriminately and use excessive force.

Re: “Attack on Pope Leo, posting of Jesus image criticized,” April 14 news story

When in the course of human events, could someone have ever foreseen the time when the president of the United States would have to explain why he posted and unposted a picture of himself as Jesus? Will there be additional low points of this presidency before Congress realizes it is time to face the reality of the president¶¶Òőap mind and protect what¶¶Òőap left of the reputation of the office?

Cindy Robertson, Denver

Just when you think President Trump can’t get any crazier, he does (e.g., attacking Iran, insulting the pope, etc.). What will be the crisis du jour tomorrow? I think it¶¶Òőap time for Congress to begin 25th Amendment proceedings. Please. Before it¶¶Òőap too late.

Flint Whitlock, Denver

Let’s understand the impeachment clause

Re: “,” April 9 commentary

Kirsten Matoy Carlson is mistaken about the consequences of a guilty verdict by the U.S. Senate after an impeachment trial. She states, “If the person is convicted and removed from office, only then can senators vote on whether to permanently disqualify that person from ever again holding federal office.”

That is not what the Constitution says! states: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States
” There is only one vote.

Nowhere in the Constitution with regard to impeachment is there any reference or mandate that after conviction, senators “may” or “can” vote to bar the convicted person from holding federal office in the future. Legal scholars hinge that false opinion on their false understanding of grammar. The word “and” is a conjunction. It joins independent clauses, indicating a connection between the two, especially between items of the same type or class. Removal from office and barring from holding any other office are of the same class and type! In essence, the Senate is saying, “You violated your oath of office and the public trust, therefore you are removed from office and cannot be trusted in any federal office in the future.”

Tom Hubbard, Denver

Tax return takes nonsensical route to Ogden, Utah via USPS

I sent my tax return to the IRS in Ogden, Utah, via certified mail on March 13. It took a vacation and flew to Sarasota, Fla., then to Tampa, then back to Sarasota before making a leisurely trip to its original destination. It arrived there on March 27.

Using flying distance, an approximate 400-mile trip became a 3,550-mile journey.

Conspiracy theorists want to know whether the USPS has been tasked with delaying our refunds as long as possible. Or are they just practicing for what they plan to do with our ballots for the midterms?

Dee Nelson, Centennial

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.

Democrats in the state House passed in a 41-22 vote, sending the measure to the Senate over Republican opposition.

Lawmakers typically undertake election reforms just about every year, largely to adopt technical changes sought by county clerks and the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office. This year’s version includes similar tweaks.

But HB-1113 would also extend several key voting deadlines. The bill would require that drop boxes accept ballots for 22 days before an election, rather than the current law’s 15-day window. Ballots could be mailed to voters up to 29 days ahead of Election Day, up from 22 days now.

At a minimum, clerks would have to mail ballots out at least 25 days ahead of time, up from 18 days in the current law.

“Colorado’s elections are the gold standard in part because we continuously update our laws to guard against new threats to our democracy,” Rep. Emily Sirota, a Denver Democrat, said in a statement. She’s sponsoring the bill with Rep. Jenny Willford. “Coloradans deserve to cast their ballot without barriers, and this bill safeguards against federal interference in our elections and makes it easier to vote.”

The changes come ahead of the 2026 midterm elections and follow Trump’s escalating calls for the federal government and Republicans to elections. Trump allies — including Peter Ticktin, the lawyer for incarcerated former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters — have circulated a draft executive order that would attempt to give Trump unprecedented control over elections, .

The U.S. Constitution over elections to state legislatures, with oversight authority granted to Congress.

Colorado officials have criticized Trump’s rhetoric in the past and defended Colorado as a model for election administration nationwide. In a statement about the Washington Post’s report last week, Secretary of State Jena Griswold criticized the president as “one of the greatest threats to American elections.”

In addition to expanding various voting timelines, HB-1113 would also allow people who live in transitional housing — like halfway houses — to vote.

As Colorado’s ballots grow longer and longer, the legislation would also allow voters to take written materials into polling places for their own reference. Voting centers that run out of supplies would be required to stay open past the 7 p.m. poll closing time. Colleges would be required to provide more information about voting to their students in the days before Election Day.

HB-1113 would repeal a provision of state law that allows a registered voter to challenge the eligibility of other voters. During a committee hearing last month, Sirota told fellow lawmakers that people who’d bought into misinformation about ineligible voters were sending lengthy lists of challenges to county clerks.

She said she was open to reforms, rather than a full repeal of that provision, but added that lawmakers were moving forward with stripping it for the time being.

House Republicans unanimously opposed the bill, citing various reasons. Rep. Stephanie Luck attempted to amend the bill to make it easier for political parties to close their primaries to unaffiliated voters, long a goal of some in the Colorado GOP. Rep. Ken DeGraaf, who that sent him and the rest of the House to the Capitol, defended Peters and sought to add more election security controls to the bill.

Other Republicans said some of the bill’s provisions would add burdensome new costs for small counties.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where it needs a committee vote and two floor votes before moving to Gov. Jared Polis for passage into law.

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¶¶Òőap 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.

But , mounted to poles at intersections throughout this city of nearly 150,000, brought out dozens of people to the Thornton Community Center for a discussion on how the controversial license plate-reading cameras are being used — and whether they should be used at all.

Law enforcement agencies cite the automatic license-plate readers, or ALPRs, as a powerful tool that bolsters their ability to locate and stop suspects who may be on their way to committing their next assault or robbery.

But Meg Moore, a six-year resident of the city who is helping spearhead opposition to Flock cameras, said she worries about how the rapidly spreading surveillance system is impacting residents’ privacy and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Thornton’s Flock camera data can be seen by more than 1,600 other law enforcement agencies across the country.

“We want to make sure this is truly safe and effective,” she said in an interview.

The debate over Atlanta-based Flock Safety’s cameras, which not only can record license plate numbers but can search for the specific characteristics of a vehicle linked to an alleged crime, has been picking up steam in recent years. The discussions in recent months, but this year they reached the state Capitol, where lawmakers are pitching a couple of bills to tighten up rules around surveillance.

The number of police agencies , according to the company. The critical “DeFlock” website uses crowdsourcing to tally the number of Flock cameras out there. At the latest count, the website lists nearly .

Metro Denver alone is home to hundreds of the cameras, .

In Denver, Mayor Mike Johnston has been butting heads with the City Council over the issue. Johnston is so convinced of Flock’s value in combating crime that in October, he extended the contract with the company against the wishes of much of the council. Denver has 111 Flock cameras.

In Longmont, elected leaders . Its City Council voted in December to pause all sharing of Flock Safety data with other municipalities, declined an expansion of its contract with the company and began searching for an alternative.

Louisville beat its Boulder County neighbor to the punch by several months, disabling its Flock cameras at the end of June and removing them by the start of October. City spokesman Derek Cosson said privacy concerns from residents largely drove the city’s decision.

Steve Mathias, a Thornton resident for nearly a decade, would like to see Flock’s cameras gone from his city. Short of that, he said, reliable controls on how the streetside data is collected, stored and shared are paramount.

“In our rush to make our community safe, we’re not getting the full picture of the risks we’re facing,” he said. “We’re making ourselves safe in some ways by making ourselves less safe in others.”

The hot-button debate in Thornton played out at last month’s community meeting and continued at a City Council meeting last week, where the city’s Police Department gave a presentation on the Flock system.

Cmdr. Chad Parker laid out several examples of Flock’s cameras being instrumental in apprehending bad actors — in cases ranging from homicide to sex assault to child exploitation to a $5,700 theft at a Nike store.

As recently as Monday, Thornton police that investigators had tracked down a man suspected of hitting and killing a 14-year-old boy who was riding a small motorized bike over the weekend. The agency said a Flock camera in Thornton gave officers a “strong lead” in identifying the hit-and-run suspect within 24 hours.

At the Feb. 3 council study session, police Chief Jim Baird described Flock’s camera system as “one of the best tools I’ve seen in 32 years of law enforcement.”

But that doesn’t sway those in Thornton who are wary of the camera network.

“I’m not a fan of building toward a surveillance state,” Mathias said.

The hazards of a system like Flock, he said, lie not just in the pervasive data-collection methods the company uses but also in who eventually might get to see and use that data — be it a rogue law enforcement officer or .

“A person who wants us to do us harm with this system will have as much capability as the police have to do good,” he said.

Crime-fighting tool or prone to misuse?

In November, a Columbine Valley police officer was disciplined after he accused a Denver woman of theft based in large part on evidence from Flock cameras, according to . The officer mistakenly claimed the woman had stolen a $25 package in a nearby town and said he’d used Flock cameras to track her car.

“It’s putting too much trust in the hands of people who don’t know what they’re doing,” DeFlock’s Will Freeman said of so many police agencies’ adoption of the technology.

Last summer, that the Loveland Police Department had shared access to its Flock camera system with U.S. Border Patrol. That came two months after the station reported that the department access to its account, which ATF agents then used to conduct searches for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Parker, the Thornton police commander, said any searches connected to immigration cases or to women from out of state who are seeking an abortion in Colorado — another scenario that’s been raised — “won’t ever touch our system.” State laws restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities and with other states’ abortion-related investigations.

“Any situation I feel uncomfortable about or that might be in conflict with our policies or with Colorado law, I will revoke their access — no problem,” he said.

Thornton deputy city attorney Adam Stephens said motorists’ Fourth Amendment rights are not being violated by the city’s Flock camera network. During last week’s meeting, he cited several recent court cases that, in essence, determined that there is no right to privacy while driving down a public roadway.

In an interview, Stephens said Thornton was “in compliance with the law.”

Flock spokesman Paris Lewbel wrote in an email that the company was “proud to partner with the Thornton Police Department to provide technology used to investigate and solve crimes and to help locate missing persons.”

Lewbel provided links to two news stories about minor children who were abducted and then found with the help of Flock’s cameras in Thornton and elsewhere.

At the council’s study session last week, Parker provided more examples of Flock’s role in fighting crime and finding missing people in Thornton. They included police nabbing a suspect who had hit and killed a pedestrian, locating a burglar who was suspected of robbing several dispensaries, and tracking down an 89-year-old man with dementia who had gotten into his car and gotten lost.

“It allows us to find vehicles in a manner we weren’t able to previously,” Parker said of the camera network.

Thornton installed its first 10 Flock cameras in 2022 and then added five more — plus a mobile unit — two years later. The initial deployment was in response to a spike in auto thefts in the city, which peaked at 1,205 in 2022 (amid an overall surge in Colorado). Thornton recorded 536 auto thefts last year.

The city says Flock cameras have been involved in 200 cases that resulted in an arrest or a warrant application in Thornton over the last three years.

Thornton police have access to nearly 2,200 other agencies’ Flock systems across the United States, while nearly 1,650 law enforcement agencies can access Thornton’s Flock data, according to data provided by the city.

For Anaya Robinson, the public policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, the networked nature of Flock cameras across wide geographies is a big part of the problem. By linking one police agency’s Flock technology with that of thousands of other police departments, it “creates a surveillance environment that could violate the Fourth Amendment.”

The sweeping nature of Flock’s surveillance is also worrisome, Robinson said.

“You’re not just collecting the data of vehicles that ping (a police department’s) hot list (of suspicious vehicles), you’re collecting the data of every vehicle that is caught on a Flock camera,” he said.

And because the technology is relatively inexpensive — Thornton pays $48,500 to Flock annually for its system — it’s an affordable crime-fighting tool for most communities. But that doesn’t mean it should be deployed, DeFlock’s Freeman said.

Fight remains a largely local one

State lawmakers are crafting bills this session to limit the reach of surveillance technologies like Flock’s.

would put limits on access to databases and the sharing of information. It would prohibit a government from accessing a database that reveals an individual’s or a vehicle’s historical location information, and it would prohibit sharing that information with third parties or with government agencies outside the controlling entity’s jurisdiction. Certain exceptions would apply.

would direct a “law enforcement agency to use surveillance technology only for lawful purposes directly related to public safety or for an active investigation.” It also would forbid the use of facial-recognition technology without a warrant and would place limits on the amount of time data can be retained.

Both bills await their first committee hearings.

Thornton says it doesn’t use facial recognition technology. Its Flock data is retained for 30 days.

Regardless of what passes at the state Capitol, the real fight over license plate readers of any type will likely continue to happen at the local level. Thornton’s council plans further discussions on Flock next month.

For Moore, the resident who is leading the charge against the cameras, potential surveillance of the immigrant community is what troubles her the most.

“We want to make sure we’re operating this so that it’s safe for all of our residents,” she said. “Getting rid of the cameras altogether is a tough sell. But there needs to be a conversation about guardrails.”

Mayor Pro Tem Roberta Ayala, a Thornton native, said she has heard a wide array of opinions from her constituents about the advantages and potential downsides of the technology.

“Could it be misused? Yes. Do we want to stop that? Yes,” she said.

But as a victim of crime herself, Ayala also knows the immense damage and disruption that crime causes victims and their families, be it a stolen vehicle or something much worse. And as a teacher, Ayala is concerned about achieving justice for the families of children who are harmed or abused.

“If it can save even five kids,” she said, “I want the cameras.”

Re: “Food, Honestly: Is takeout too expensive?” Jan. 14 commentary

Allyson Reedy hit the nail on the head. My wife and I love to eat out, but in all honesty, the prices are starting to deter us. At our favorite sit-down burger place, a burger is $14, fries are $4, and a Happy Hour beer is $6 — $24 before taxes/fees and tip. There are myriad taxes and extra fees (Fair Labor, kitchen, recycling, composting, etc.) these days, usually averaging 10-15% of the bill. Add a 20% tip and you are over $30 for a burger and a beer. Multiply that by two, and our tab is usually just under $65.

Not to sound like my mother, but you want to know how many burgers, fries and beers I can have at home for $65? I honestly don’t know how the average family eats out these days. I’m guessing in light of all the restaurant closures that too many don’t.

Mike Conkey, Thornton

ICE is making sanctuary communities safer

Re: “Bills address immigration crackdown,” Jan. 15 news story and “” and “” Jan. 18 news stories.

The U.S. Constitution clearly states that the federal government has supremacy over states in matters of immigration. Sanctuary states and localities are clearly illegal and actions by them to impede or interfere with federal immigration law enforcement are illegal and constitute insurrection.

Officials in sanctuary states like California and Minnesota and sanctuary cities like Los Angeles and Minneapolis claim that ICE is creating chaos and making conditions unsafe for their citizens. Actually, it is government officials in these states and cities that are creating these conditions by refusing to cooperate with ICE, releasing criminal aliens with ICE detainers onto the streets, encouraging residents to protest against ICE and doing nothing when protests turn into riots with projectiles and fireworks thrown at federal agents, federal vehicles damaged, and ”protestors” vehicles used to impede law enforcement. Their actions encourage residents to endanger themselves and risk prosecution for criminal violations. You do not see chaos and unsafe conditions in non-sanctuary cities or states that cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

Officials in sanctuary cities and many news outlets do not publish mug shots and RAP sheets for the murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug and human traffickers and other criminal aliens that ICE is apprehending and by so doing making communities safer. They claim that ICE is apprehending peaceful, law-abiding immigrants, and call ICE agents Nazis, the Gestapo, terrorists, and racists. (News flash: non-citizens who enter the country illegally are not law-abiding.) The Associated Press and the Denver Post are complicit.

 Steve Lloyd, Cheyenne

Should judges, politicians and journalists cover their faces?

I would like to remind your readers who support the masking of ICE agents because of possible threats to their lives, that judges who have ruled against this administration, politicians who oppose this administration, reporters who question this administration are not masked and have also been threatened by said administration, doxxed by the same. Some of these people, in fact, have been killed for their beliefs. These individuals are not as heavily armed as ICE agents and are just as, if not more vulnerable than these ICE agents, who, in many cases, have not been properly vetted or trained. So civil disobedience and noncompliance are indeed justified.

Rochelle Davis, Denver

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 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¶¶Òőap 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¶¶Òőap 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

Trump’s embarrassing temper tantrums would be tolerable if they didn’t also come with real-world actions that hurt Coloradans — costing them their livelihoods, and yes, access to clean drinking water.

Gov. Jared Polis’ and Rep. Lauren Boebert’s responses to Trump give us hope that Americans can unite after Trump leaves office, as required by the U.S. Constitution, in January 2029. Trump will not succeed in his effort to divide Coloradans who love one another despite our political differences.

Trump is hurting our more liberal-minded residents in Boulder County with his decision to first cut dozens of jobs at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and then his pledge to dismantle the headquarters entirely.

And now Trump will hurt more conservative-minded Coloradans with his veto of $1.2 billion in federal funding for a clean-drinking water pipeline to residents in eastern Pueblo County who have been advised for years not to drink well water because of contamination.

Gov. Jared Polis’ response to all of this has been calm, dignified and dedicated to preserving the integrity of our justice system.

“I hope the President¶¶Òőap resolution this year is to spend less time online talking about me and more on making America more affordable by stopping his disastrous tariffs and fixing rising health care costs. Finally, I wish all Americans, including the President and all the wonderful people across the political spectrum, a happy, healthy and productive New Year,” Polis said Wednesday.

Boebert shot back at Trump’s veto of her bill, telling 9News that: “If this administration wants to make its legacy blocking projects that deliver water to rural Americans, that’s on them … Americans deserve leadership that puts people over politics.”

Before the New Year, Trump ordered his administration to move the work at the National Center for Atmospheric Research from Boulder to “another entity or location.”

The administration attempted to blame the move on NCAR’s work studying climate change. The White House issued a statement to The Denver Post calling NCAR “the premier research stronghold for left-wing climate lunacy.”

We disagree strongly with both of the assertions in that statement. First, the global climate is warming, and a vast amount of scientific research indicates that the trend is being driven in large part by the increase in greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and methane, among others) in our atmosphere.

Second, NCAR’s work is professional, scientifically based and doesn’t carry a hint of the “alarmism” that we see from many politicians who talk about an extinction-level event occurring in a few years.

But we also don’t believe for a moment that “climate change alarmism” is the real reason behind Trump’s decision to dismantle NCAR — a federal agency we must remind the president that was created by Congress and funded by Congress and protected from unilateral termination by the executive branch.

Trump’s decision came rapidly after Colorado officials refused Trump’s demand that Tina Peters be released from jail. Peters, a former clerk and recorder from Mesa County, was convicted of using fraudulent means to give a random man access to the county’s voting equipment. Peters believed Trump’s lies that the 2020 election had been stolen. She stole credentials from one of her employees and brought a man into a secure area where he accessed data from vote-countingÌęłŸČ賊łóŸ±ČÔ±đČő. Later, she tried to cover up her actions.

The data did not show any evidence of voter fraud.

But that hasn’t prevented Trump from trying to pardon her and now from retaliating against Colorado officials who are merely upholding the work of a jury of Peter’s peers who found her guilty.

Hundreds of federal workers in Colorado have already lost their jobs as a result of Trump’s policies. Then those employees who remained suffered under the federal shutdown. Now, Trump is coming again for federal workers, claiming he is trying to reduce the federal debt and deficit. But Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill added more to the federal deficit than what he has cut so far.

Which brings us to Trump’s most recent retaliatory action against Colorado, which he says was done in the name of cutting the federal budget and “restoring fiscal sanity.”

We cannot argue with Trump that the $1.3 billion price tag to bring clean drinking water to 50,000 residents is steep. But it is not wasteful. This is a necessary and long-awaited public infrastructure project. The project has been thoroughly vetted and is shovel-ready.

Trump’s veto is a black eye on his administration, and his outlandish words and actions only underline why he is wholly unfit to serve as president of the United States of America.

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.

President Donald Trump claimed to grant former Colorado county clerk Tina Peters a “full pardon” Thursday night — a power that constitutional law experts say he cannot wield for a person convicted of state-level crimes.

Peters, 70, is serving a nine-year sentence in state prison in Pueblo for felonies related to providing unauthorized access to voting equipment when she was the elected clerk and recorder of Mesa County. She had worked with prominent election deniers in an attempt to prove discredited claims that voting machines were manipulated, and she’s been a prominent supporter of Trump’s debunked claims of fraud in the 2020 election.

Is DOJ investigation of Colorado prisons an honest probe or political stunt? Colorado industry watchers wary, but hopeful

On Thursday evening, Trump that "Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest."

"Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the 'crime' of demanding Honest Elections," Trump continued. "Today I am granting Tina a full Pardon for her attempts to expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election!"

Trump, however, can grant pardons only for federal crimes -- not those committed against the state, as Peters was convicted of.

"Trump has the constitutional power to pardon people for crimes against the United States," Jessica Smith, a Denver-based attorney with the firm Holland and Hart, said of Trump's post. "Peters was convicted of crimes against Colorado. To suggest he can pardon for state crimes would upend fundamental principles of federalism."

An attorney for Peters could not be reached for comment on the president's action.

A signed by Trump was posted on on Friday afternoon. It says simply that Trump grants "a full and unconditional pardon" to Peters "for those offenses she has or may have committed or taken part in related to election integrity and security during the period from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021."

An attempted pardon by Trump won't have any bearing on Peters' incarceration at the La Vista Correctional Facility. But it could be used by Peters' attorneys as the basis for further filings in state or federal court, where their attempts to free her have been rejected by judges so far.

In a statement, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said he would let the matter play out in court -- while emphasizing that presidents do not have jurisdiction over state law. Only the governor would have the power to pardon Peters for state convictions.

“Tina Peters was convicted by a jury of her peers, prosecuted by a Republican District Attorney and in a Republican county of Colorado, and found guilty of violating Colorado state laws including criminal impersonation," Polis, a Democrat, said in the statement. "... This is a matter for the courts to decide, and we will abide by court orders.”

Other reactions to president's post

Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement that state sovereignty and the ability for states to manage their own criminal justice systems are "the most basic principles of our constitution."

"The idea that a president could pardon someone tried and convicted in state court has no precedent in American law, would be an outrageous departure from what our constitution requires, and will not hold up," said Weiser, a Democrat who is running for governor.

Peters has been treated as a sort of martyr by fellow election conspiracy theorists, including Trump, who's a fellow Republican. Trump, since his return to office in January, has repeatedly threatened, insulted and otherwise sought to cajole Polis to give Peters leniency.

Last week, U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert on the social platform X: "FREE TINA!"

On Thursday, Joe Oltmann, a far-right podcaster based in Colorado who's , applauded Trump's attempted pardon in , writing: "Breaking: Standoff is on. President Trump issues a pardon for Tina Peters. Arrest them all."

Doug Spencer, a constitutional law professor at the University of Colorado, echoed Smith in reacting to Trump's attempted pardon -- and warned that his post may send a dangerous message. He called it "sad that our president hasn't read or doesn't understand a basic tenet of the U.S. Constitution."

"This post carries no legal weight," Spencer said. "It is a political stunt. And a dangerous one -- because it may lead others to believe that he has some power over her case, and that those individuals involved in her case in Colorado have acted inappropriately or illegally, for which there is absolutely no evidence."

Matt Crane, the executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association, said Peters failed to uphold election-integrity standards that “are among the toughest in the nation.”

“It¶¶Òőap painful to see someone we once worked with make choices that undermined the responsibilities of her office, but those choices were hers,” he said. “Her conviction is a reminder that no one is above the law. Anyone who interferes with or attempts to corrupt our election systems will be held accountable. That¶¶Òőap how we protect our elections and our democracy.”

Trump's past attempts at pressure

This fall, the Trump administration had sought to move Peters to a federal prison, where his administration would have more say about her conditions. But state corrections officials have rejected that request, considering it improper.

Earlier this year, at Trump's urging, the Department of Justice intervened in Peters' federal court case challenging her imprisonment and said it would review the state's prosecution of her for "abuses of the criminal justice process."

On Monday, a federal judge ruled that his court didn't have the authority to release Peters while she appeals her 2024 conviction through the state courts.

Peters' legal team has argued that she should be released because she is ill, because her mother is in the hospital and because she was being held in solitary confinement.

In a statement issued after Trump posted about the pardon, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat who is in charge of state elections, said: “Tina Peters was convicted by a jury of her peers for state crimes in a state court. Trump has no constitutional authority to pardon her. His assault is not just on our democracy, but on states’ rights and the American Constitution.”

In August 2024, a Mesa County jury found Peters guilty of three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state.

She had allowed a man affiliated with My Pillow chief executive Mike Lindell, a prominent election denier himself, to so he could access the Mesa County election system. She was then deceptive about that person's identity.

“A jury of her peers in Mesa County convicted her on multiple felony charges stemming from the breach and tampering of election systems,” Crane said. “Colorado’s laws worked, and accountability was delivered.”

In a separate case this past summer, Lindell was found liable for defamation for calling a former Dominion Voting Systems executive "treasonous" while attacking the validity of the 2020 election.

At Peters' sentencing last year, Mesa County District Judge Matthew Barrett slammed her for a lack of remorse for her crimes against the public trust and her defiance in the face of evidence that the elections were secure and valid.

“I am convinced you would do it all over again if you could," Barrett said in handing down her sentence. "You’re as defiant as any defendant this court has ever seen. You are no hero. You abused your position and you’re a charlatan.”

The Trump administration’s probe will examine “policies and practices” within the and “to ensure that DOC inmates and youths in the custody of DYS are being afforded their rights under the U.S. Constitution and federal law,” the Justice Department said in a news release.

“The Constitution protects every American, whether they are a young person confined in a juvenile facility or an elderly person confined to a prison,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a statement. “We are committed to upholding our federal civil rights laws so that no one is subject to unconstitutional mistreatment when held in state custody.”

The Justice Department, in a dated Monday, said the investigation will center on whether prisoners in the Department of Corrections’ 21 facilities are being provided adequate medical care and safe and sanitary conditions.

Investigators will also seek to determine whether Colorado fails to protect youth in the state’s 12 detention and confinement centers from excessive force and fails to provide them with adequate nutrition.

Finally, the probe will take aim at the state’s policy surrounding the incarceration of transgender inmates, investigating whether the Department of Corrections “violates prisoners’ and detainees’ right to free exercise of religion by housing biological males in units designated for females,” the agency said in its letter to the governor.

A Polis spokesperson could not be reached immediately for comment.

The Justice Department’s announcement comes on the heels of Colorado officials denying President Donald Trump’s request to move former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters from a state facility to a federal prison. A federal court on Monday denied Peters’ latest request to leave prison. She’s serving a nine-year sentence on election-related charges.

Trump has repeatedly called for Peters’ release, and a senior Justice Department official has said he’s working to free her. After Colorado officials rejected the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ transfer request last month, the president called Polis a “sleazebag” and said Peters had been “unfairly convicted.”

Peters’ attorneys, in court filings, have said her health has declined during her time in the Colorado prison. It’s not clear whether the Justice Department’s focus on medical care in Colorado prisons is related to Peters; she is not mentioned in the agency’s letter to Polis or its news release announcing the probe.

The government’s investigation also follows The Denver Post’s reporting about the conditions inside the state’s juvenile detention facilities.

Last month, 10 parents told The Post that their kids were losing concerning amounts of weight at the Youthful Offender System facility in Pueblo due to a lack of food. One individual, a 22-year-old, was hospitalized after going into renal failure due to malnourishment, his family said.

The allegations prompted state correctional staff to change inmate privileges concerning the purchase of food.

In March, The Post found internal, nonpublic critical incident reports showed rampant allegations of excessive force by staff members at the state’s youth detention and commitment facilities, serious injuries sustained by teens while being physically restrained, a litany of illicit drugs entering secure facilities, and several allegations of staff members engaging in sexual relationships with youth in their care.

The Division of Youth Services in August removed all youth serving sentences at the Lookout Mountain Youth Services Center in Golden over what staff and advocates called deteriorating safety conditions.