Polis currently has the sole authority to release the program’s graduates from prison. But the governor has not done so since 2023, unilaterally stalling the program and creating a backlog of about a dozen prisoners who have spent decades behind bars and applied for and completed the three-year program aimed at their rehabilitation and release, but who remain incarcerated, awaiting Polis’ sign-off.

Senate , introduced in early April, would allow the parole board to approve releases if the governor does not act for 60 days on a program graduate’s application for early parole, opening up a new route through which program graduates could be freed.

Any decision Polis made in the 60-day window would be final, according to the bill. If the governor did not act on a prisoner’s application for release, the decision would revert to the parole board.

The bill doesn’t change who is eligible for the program or the requirements to complete it, said Sen. Mike Weissman, an Aurora Democrat sponsoring the legislation. But it does establish a timeline so that prisoners who finish the program won’t wait longer than 60 days to find out whether they’ll be released on early parole.

Gov. Jared Polis stops releasing prisoners who’ve spent decades behind bars for youthful crime

"We do mean there to be a clear, if you will, shot clock, a time parameter, either way," Weissman said, adding that the bill will apply to the backlog of prisoners in the program as well as future graduates.

State the Juveniles and Young Adults Convicted as Adults Program, or JYACAP, in 2016 after the U.S. Supreme Court found that children are constitutionally different from adults and should not be automatically sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Lawmakers that year also changed Colorado law to prohibit such punishment.

Initially limited to juveniles, the program to include prisoners who committed a crime when they were 20 or younger and who have served at least 20 years of their sentence.

The prisoners must also meet a variety of other conditions to enter the three-year program, which focuses on building life skills and preparing for life outside of prison. The bill would expand that curriculum to require prisoners to acknowledge the impact and trauma of their crimes.

After prisoners finish the program and receive a recommendation from the parole board on whether they should be released on early parole, the governor must make the final decision. Polis routinely approved releases from the program between 2020 and 2023, freeing all 17 program graduates in that time frame, but stopped doing so in recent years, expressing "discomfort" with the governor's role in the process.

Polis supports the proposed new process, Eric Maruyama, his press secretary, said Wednesday.

"Governor Polis is focused on making Colorado safer, and an important part of that is ensuring that individuals convicted of crimes from their youth get the support they need before being released back to the community," he said in a statement. "The governor is supportive of the JYACAP program and the bill, which would improve the decision-making process for individuals who have completed the program and provide a clear decision timeline for all parties involved."

In the latest religious rights case for the conservative-majority court, the justices will hear from in Littleton and the Archdiocese of Denver, which are supported by the Republican Trump administration.

The schools argue that Colorado is violating their religious rights by barring them from the taxpayer-funded universal preschool program over their faith-based admission policies. They say the state has allowed other preschools to prioritize children with disabilities or those from low-income families, so admission based on religious beliefs about gender and same-sex marriage should be allowed, too.

The state said that religious schools are welcome to participate but are required to follow nondiscrimination laws. Income and disability decisions are in line with those rules, Colorado said. The program was created by a 2020 ballot measure and provides public funding for preschool at schools selected by parents.

The plaintiffs are represented by the group Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which applauded the high court¶¶Òőap decision to take up the case.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that states cannot exclude families from government benefits because of their faith. We’re confident the Court will say the same thing here and put a stop to Colorado’s no-Catholics-need-apply rules,” said Nicholas Reaves, a senior counsel at Becket.

As part of the case, which will be heard in the fall, the court will consider narrowing a landmark 1990 decision over the spiritual use of peyote, a cactus that contains a hallucinogen called mescaline. That opinion, written by conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia, found religious practices don’t create exemptions from broadly applicable laws.

The justices declined a push from the schools, along with a Catholic family in Colorado, to overturn the ruling.

The high court recently has backed other claims of religious discrimination while taking a more skeptical view of LGBTQ+ rights.

The justices last month ruled against another law in Colorado that banned “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ kids after the measure was challenged by a Christian counselor.

Last year, the justices found that parents who have religious objections can pull their children from Maryland public school lessons that use LGBTQ+ storybooks. In 2022, the court found a high school football coach who knelt and prayed on the field after games was protected by the Constitution.

The court deadlocked, though, over a plan to establish a publicly funded Catholic charter school after Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at .

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 PĂ©rez, 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¶¶Òőap 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¶¶Òőap 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.

The agency’s said Jeffco Public Schools violated and gave Colorado’s second-largest K-12 system 10 days to agree to a proposed resolution — including reversing any policies that allow transgender students to play sports — or “risk imminent enforcement action.” 

Jeffco Public Schools pushed back Friday afternoon, saying the Education Department’s “conclusion is erroneous” and conflicts with Colorado law.

“Providing equal access to programs and services for all Jeffco students, including those who are transgender, does not violate Title IX,” district leaders said in a statement. “The department’s interpretation has no basis in the Title IX regulations and is not supported by any binding court decision.”

The Education Department has targeted K-12 districts nationwide for their policies supporting transgender students since President Donald Trump returned to office last year, threatening to pull their federal funding for what the administration calls discriminatory policies.

Attorneys specializing in Title IX have previously told The Denver Post that the Trump administration is misapplying the landmark civil rights law, which was created to ensure girls and women can participate in school activities without sexual harassment.

Last year, the Office of Civil Rights issued a similar determination that Denver Public Schools had discriminated against girls in violation of Title IX by creating gender-neutral bathrooms at East High School and enacting policies that allow students to use facilities that correspond with their gender identities.

In September, DPS defied the Education Department’s deadline to convert the restrooms back into single-sex facilities or face unspecified “enforcement action.” But the district never heard back from the agency about the Title IX investigation, DPS spokesman Bill Good said Friday.

The Trump administration launched its investigation into Jeffco Public Schools last year after a family sued the district in 2024, alleging their daughter went on an overnight trip and was assigned to share a bed with a transgender girl.

“Today’s findings reveal sweeping Title IX violations by Jefferson County Public Schools — denying fairness and equality to female students by allowing males into their private facilities, overnight accommodations and athletics,” Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey said . “The district¶¶Òőap decision to prioritize ‘gender identity’ over ensuring equal access for its female students is unconscionable.”

The federal government has requested that Jeffco Public Schools agree to a settlement that includes rescinding any policies that allow transgender students to access girls’ facilities — including overnight accommodations — and to play on female sports teams, according to the civil rights office.

The Department of Education’s proposed settlement also would require Jeffco Public Schools to issue a public statement that says the district will use “biology-based definitions of the words ‘male’ and ‘female,'” the agency said.

“The statement shall specify that Title IX applies irrespective of state law or regulation and the policies of sports governing bodies, and provide instructions for how to report or file a complaint of sex discrimination under the district¶¶Òőap grievance policies,” the Education Department said.

Jeffco Public Schools officials did not say directly whether they plan to comply with the Education Department’s proposed settlement.

“As we consider next steps in partnership with our community and state and local officials, two things remain certain: (1) Jeffco will continue to maintain its compliance with the law, and (2) we will center decisions on providing exemplary, equitable educational opportunities for all students,” the district said in its statement.

The Department of Education said it received athletic rosters that showed “male students occupy 61 roster positions on girls sports teams” at Jeffco schools, according to an agency news release. The Post could not immediately verify the department’s claims.

Transgender students’ participation in sports has become a flashpoint for conservatives and schools. The has for years recognized the right of transgender athletes to participate on sports teams that match their gender identities, but agreed last year not to penalize districts’ transgender athlete bans.

The heard arguments in January regarding bans on transgender girls and women playing school sports and appeared from participating.

Jeffco Public Schools said the federal government’s stance, including its proposed agreement, conflicts with state law. District officials said in their statement that Jeffco’s policies are in alignment with the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, previous federal guidance on Title IX and CHSAA policy.

“Prior federal administrations have taken the direct opposite view — that Title IX protects transgender students’ access to school programs and facilities,” Jeffco Public Schools officials said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The bipartisan bill — — would also attempt to slow down gambling habits by eliminating credit card usage on sports-betting apps, limiting the number of deposits a person can make into an account, curtailing television commercials and banning push notifications to cellphones from betting companies such as DraftKings and FanDuel.

“Frankly, the more I looked into it, the more I became really, really alarmed by everything that has happened as a consequence of legalized sports betting and, in my view, placing very few restrictions on it,” said , D-Denver, one of the bill’s sponsors.

The responsible gaming bill’s introduction sets up a potentially heated debate in the state legislature as public health advocates push for more regulation of gambling while deep-pocketed companies fight to keep growing revenue. An organization representing sports-betting companies called the bill’s provisions “draconian.”

Ball, who is sponsoring the bill with , R-Sterling, said the rapid growth of sports betting in Colorado is causing unexpected problems — including financial debt — across the state, and the legislature needs to move to protect people and the integrity of professional and collegiate sports.

The bill is sponsored in the House by , R-Frederick, and Rep. , D-Denver.

Ball cited studies that show more than half of 18-to-22-year-olds have engaged in some form of sports betting, and surveys of high school students that report that between 60% and 80% have gambled for money within the previous 12 months.

“We just didn’t know what we didn’t know,” Ball said of Colorado’s quick entry into legalized sports betting. “It’s just exploded and it’s happened very fast. I think we can see the harm that’s happened very clearly.”

Colorado voters legalized sports betting in 2019 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a law that had prohibited states from allowing it. It was one of the first states to launch online sportsbooks in May 2020, just after the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the country, including putting a pause on most sports. But the state’s residents quickly took to sports betting apps as the world returned to normal.

The amount Colorado bettors have wagered has steadily increased each year, with people betting more than $6 billion on sports in 2025. At the same time, the number of people calling the state’s problem gambling hotline has risen, too. The hotline averaged about 350 calls per month in 2025, according to the .

‘Smart policy, not prohibition’

Joshua Ewing, executive director of , an advocacy group that pushes for better health policies in the state, said new studies are showing a growing rate of addiction among young men and boys who gamble, and addiction is causing financial debt, strained relationships and emotional stress.

“It¶¶Òőap not about rolling back voter-approved betting. It¶¶Òőap about guardrails,” Ewing said of the bill. “The goal is smart policy, not prohibition.”

The sports-betting industry is prepared to push back on the legislation.

Joe Maloney, president of the , which represents the largest sports-betting companies in the United States, including FanDuel, DraftKings and BetMGM, said eliminating or proposition bets — also known as prop bets — would push sports betting back into the illegal, offshore market.

“Colorado should seize this moment to strengthen its state-regulated market — not hand it back to illegal operators or chase bettors to federally regulated platforms,” Maloney wrote in a statement. “This proposal undermines the very consumer protections it claims to advance, rewarding actors who openly flout Colorado law and contribute nothing to the state’s communities by way of tax revenues.”

In an interview with The Denver Post, Maloney said the bill included “draconian proposals” that could not only push gamblers away from the regulated market but also could reduce Colorado’s tax revenue.

“Proposals such as this one threaten both of those things squarely,” he said.

Tax revenue in Colorado has grown every year since sports betting became legal in May 2020. The collected $23.5 million in the first seven months of 2025, according to the most recent data available.

Maloney said prop bets are popular with bettors because of the decades-long popularity of fantasy sports, in which people study individual athletes and their performances to win leagues in which they compete with friends and family.

“We have a betting community that is very fluent in individual outcomes,” Maloney said.

How prop bets work

Prop bets are the moneymakers for sports-betting apps because they come with higher odds. In those bets, a gambler could bet on whether Denver Nuggets star Nikola Jokic will score 30 or more points in a game or whether Denver Broncos quarterback Bo Nix will throw more than one touchdown.

Sports-betting apps also allow gamblers to make multiple prop bets at one time to form parlays, which further increase odds in favor of the sportsbooks, but are wildly popular with gamblers.

For example, Bet365 on Wednesday offered a parlay bet called “Joker x Jamal,” where a gambler would win if the Nuggets’ Jokic and Jamal Murray both scored more than 20 points, and if Murray had more than 10 assists and Jokic grabbed more than 10 rebounds. A $10 wager would have won $100 if all four things happened in the Nuggets game against the Celtics.

That bet was a losing proposition. Murray left Wednesday night’s game in the first quarter because of an illness, scoring only two points and logging one assist. Jokic reached both goals.

Colorado already prohibits prop bets on college athletes, but Ball and the bill’s other sponsors want to prohibit them on pro sports, too, because of the temptation among athletes to take bribes to influence outcomes for gamblers.

For example, two Cleveland Guardians pitchers were in November by the U.S. Department of Justice for accepting bribes to rig pitches so corrupt gamblers could win big bets on their performances.

Curbs on TV ads, push alerts

The bill also aims to curb the barrage of television advertisements and phone notifications that people see during sporting events.

It would prohibit advertisements for sports-betting apps between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. It would also ban the betting companies from sending push notifications or text messages to gamblers that solicit bets or deposits.

Revenue from Colorado’s sports-betting market goes to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which awards grants to various projects around the state that protect and conserve lakes, streams and groundwater.

Ball did not anticipate that the bill would impact those projects, saying sports gambling continues to grow in Colorado every year.

“Any impact that this has on revenue of the sports-betting industry is going to be vastly outweighed by the growth of the industry and how much more tax money is coming into Colorado year over year,” he said.

This is the second bill filed this month that addresses gambling in Colorado. Last week, a group of legislators filed a bill that would block the Colorado Lottery Commission’s plans to open online lottery ticket sales.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday announced it would hear the companies’ arguments that such lawsuits should be heard in federal court, not state court. The companies — Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil — have argued that the case should be heard in federal court and are challenging a May decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that allowed the 2018 case filed by the City of Boulder and Boulder County to continue in state court.

“The oil companies have tried every avenue to delay our climate accountability case or move it to an out-of-state court system,” Boulder County Commissioner Ashley Stolzmann said in a news release Monday morning. “As everyone continues to face rising costs that put budgets under pressure, we must hold oil companies accountable for the significant harm they’ve caused our communities. We move forward with renewed energy and purpose for the next step toward justice.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the Boulder case could have implications for dozens of similar lawsuits alleging that oil and gas companies knowingly lied to the public about how their production of fossil fuels contributes to climate change.

Governments around the country have sought damages totaling billions of dollars, arguing it¶¶Òőap necessary to help pay for rebuilding after wildfires and severe storms worsened by climate change, along with rising sea levels.

State courts’ responses have been mixed. Some decided the cases should be heard in federal court, while Colorado and others allowed lawsuits to proceed in state court. While five of the seven Colorado Supreme Court justices said the case could stay in state court, the two dissenting justices called on the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

“As our filings make clear, climate policy shouldn’t be set through fragmented state‑court actions, and we look forward to making that case before the Court,” ExxonMobil spokesman Curtis Smith said in an emailed statement.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Boulder case will resolve the conflicting court decisions, said Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the . The project is an effort by the National Association of Manufacturers to rebuff lawsuits in state courts that target industry.

The association is not a party to the Boulder case but to hear it.

“The Supreme Court¶¶Òőap decision to review Boulder’s climate lawsuit is a decisive step toward resolving conflicting rulings nationwide and reaffirming that climate policy belongs with elected policymakers — not the courts,” Goldberg said in a statement. “Courts across the country have responded to these cases in divergent ways, with many dismissing them for lack of legal and practical foundation.

“Supreme Court review will bring much-needed clarity and uniformity to this issue and help ensure that fundamental policy decisions about energy and climate are made by the appropriate branches of government.”

Arguments on the case are expected in the fall.

In the Boulder case, ExxonMobil and Suncor argued emissions were a national issue that should be heard in federal court, where similar suits have been tossed out. The federal government has the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, not state governments, the companies previously argued.

Suncor did not respond to a request for comment Monday.

President Donald Trump’s administration weighed in to support the companies and urged the justices to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court decision, saying it would mean “every locality in the country could sue essentially anyone in the world for contributing to global climate change.”

Boulder officials want Suncor and ExxonMobil to pay for the impacts of climate change, including millions for recovery from extreme weather.

Boulder’s climate initiatives director, Jonathan Koehn, from Boulder city and county officials that the case “is, fundamentally, about fairness.”

“Boulder is already experiencing the effects of a rapidly warming climate, and the financial burden of adaptation should not fall solely on local taxpayers,” Koehn said. “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will not hamstring our right under Colorado law to seek the resources needed to build a safer, more resilient future.”

The City of Boulder has prioritized climate adaptability in its long-term planning, with the effects of climate change directly influencing approaches to pertinent city issues such as transportation and wildfire hardening.

City and county officials said Boulder — and the rest of Colorado — was already shouldering costs from rising temperatures “that would otherwise fall on local taxpayers.”

“The lawsuit aims to ensure that the corporations that caused the harm pay their fair share, rather than shifting the burden to Colorado communities,” officials said in the release.

Tiff Boyd, the executive director for the Boulder County organization Classrooms for Climate Action, echoed Koehn’s belief that the average person has been bearing too much of the brunt of climate change. The 2021 Marshall fire’s impact is indicative of that — not just from the blaze but also from its aftermath of rebuilding and preparing for a future fire.

“The financial burden of all this adaptation is falling solely on local taxpayers,” said Boyd, who pointed toward an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is human-caused, particularly from the burning of fossil fuels.

Jonathan Skinner-Thompson, an associate law professor at the University of Colorado Boulder who specializes in administrative and environmental law, said the Supreme Court hasn’t shown interest in cases similar to the Boulder lawsuit in the past.

That, he said, raises curiosity and nerves about why the justices wanted to hear the case.

“You could read into that that maybe this Supreme Court doesn’t think it has the authority to hear these types of lawsuits, and so that would block people from bringing them in the future,” Skinner-Thompson said.

Monday’s decision to take up the case comes on the heels of the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent revocation of a finding that climate change posed a threat to public health, which provided the legal underpinning for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

How the Supreme Court handles challenges to that decision may offer a window into the justices’ views on the Boulder case, he said.

“I think that¶¶Òőap going to be a big issue in terms of how that impacts what the Supreme Court thinks about these types of climate nuisance cases, going forward,” Skinner-Thompson said.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Friday, is one of several cases across the nation that aim to open the door for state governments to use public dollars to operate religious schools.

The Colorado lawsuit involves , which opened in August with 29 students and calls itself the state’s “first public Christian school.”

The news that Riverstone was a faith-based school caught state officials by surprise, spurring them to caution school leaders that the could withhold funding since the state constitution prohibits religious public schools, .

Riverstone and the , which authorized the school to open, are now challenging that state law with their lawsuit — a step that the school appears to have been designed for.

Emails from an attorney representing the school and the Education reEnvisioned BOCES last year revealed that, after the on whether to allow Oklahoma’s government to fund a Catholic charter school, the attorney was asked by the religious legal organization to “find a way for a parallel case to be initiated out of Colorado,” Chalkbeat reported.

BOCES provide educational services such as special education, staff development and other support across multiple school districts to help the districts split costs.

“Colorado’s laws discriminating against religious schools are unconstitutional under the First Amendment based on a series of recent cases which find that states are not free to exclude religious actors from generally available government programs based on religion,” said Jeremy Dys, one of the attorneys representing the Education reEnvisioned BOCES, in a statement.

“We look forward to the court declaring this odious discrimination unconstitutional and affirming the rights of religious students and parents to be treated fairly,” he added.

Riverstone and the Education reEnvisioned BOCES filed their lawsuit against state Education Commissioner Susana CĂłrdova and members of the state Board of Education.

Jeremy Meyer, a spokesman for the education department, declined to comment Wednesday, citing the ongoing litigation.

A has also been filed by Wilberforce Academy, which wants to operate a religious school in Knox County, Tennesse.

Riverstone has received state funding, but the education department is now undertaking an audit of the school’s pupil count, according to the lawsuit. The school alleges that “those funds will imminently be clawed back following the ongoing audit,” according to the lawsuit.

in El Paso County, is the fiscal agent for the Education reEnvisioned BCOES. The group has an with , which allows Riverstone to operate within that district¶¶Òőap boundary.

Riverstone leaders didn’t mention religion on their application for a school code with the state nor did they mention it in the agreement with Pueblo 70,

In October, the state education department sent a letter to District 49 Superintendent Peter Hilts and Education ReEnvisioned BOCES Director Ken Witt, telling them that the agency had recently learned that the group had “opened a fully outsourced and privately contracted ‘public school’ called Riverstone Academy.”

The per-pupil funding that Riverstone received from the October statewide count of K-12 students comes from the state via District 49 and the Education ReEnvisioned BOCES, according to the letter.

Education reEnvisioned BCOES will give Riverstone $324,330 in per-pupil funding based on the school’s 2025-26 enrollment count, Dys said.

The education department’s letter also noted that the school has advertised itself as a religious school, but the Colorado Constitution requires public schools to be nonsectarian.

Witt, who is the former superintendent of the Woodland Park School District, replied to the education department¶¶Òőap letter by saying, “We are alarmed at the threat to funding a school due to the religious status of Riverstone Academy.”

“…Education reEnvisioned does not find that Riverstone Academy is ‘sectarian’ under Colorado law,” he wrote, according to a copy of the letter reviewed by The Post.

The education department said in a Feb. 13 letter to Witt that its audit of Riverstone’s pupil count is “based on neutral criteria that were applied equally to all districts, BOCES and the Charter School Institute,” according to a copy reviewed by The Post.

“
(T)he religious status of the entity providing instructional minutes is not relevant to the analysis,” wrote Jennifer Okes, district operations special adviser, for the Department of Education.

It’s not clear where Riverstone Academy is currently located.

In January, Pueblo County officials ordered Riverstone to close its building because of unaddressed safety concerns, Chalkbeat reported.

Riverstone moved to a new location for a few weeks and expects to be back in its building soon, said Michael Francisco, one of the school’s attorneys. But he declined to say where the school is now operating.

The reported spending more than $2.4 million in 2025 to help women pay for abortion procedures and associated support, such as travel and lodging. In 2021, the last full year before the Supreme Court overturned Roe, ending its establishment of constitutional protections for abortion, the fund spent about $207,000 on those services.

In all, the fund paid for nearly 4,000 abortions and provided extra support to about 1,100 patients, its leaders said Wednesday. The fund was started by Cobalt, an abortion rights advocacy group.

Nearly 40% of the $1.74 million spent on abortion procedures last year went to help Texans, according to Cobalt — second only to Coloradans, who received about 48% of that money. Texans also accounted for 86% of the $665,000 that went to support those receiving the procedure.

Texas has some of the strictest antiabortion laws in the country, while Colorado has some of the most protective state laws.

The money spent by the fund was all privately raised from individuals and foundations. Most donors, whether individuals or foundations, have Colorado ties, Cobalt President Karen Middleton said. She attributed the increase to strict antiabortion laws in other states.

“Colorado is in a really unique position to say we can help,” Middleton said. “But the disaster that is this loss of care for so many people cannot be overstated.”

Colorado and Texas have taken opposite paths on abortion care and access.

The year before the Supreme Court overturned Roe, the Texas legislature passed after about six weeks of pregnancy, a period before many women know they’re pregnant. The state has also sought to clamp down on pills that induce abortion, including with so-called that allow unrelated individuals to sue any person or entity that helps people obtain those pills.

Colorado voters in 2024 approved Amendment 79, which enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution. The legislature in 2025 also expanded the state’s shield law to protect providers and patients

Cobalt Abortion Fund Director Melisa Hidalgo-Cuellar said the cost for care is rising only because of how many patients need to travel and because restrictions on abortions make it harder for people to get timely care.

“The need is still there,” Hidalgo-Cuellar said. “People still need this essential health care. People are just forced to travel outside of their states to receive this essential health care.”

The new map, proposed by Coloradans for a Level Playing Field, would give Democrats an advantage in seven of Colorado’s eight congressional seats — but not until 2028 at the earliest, unlike in several other states to benefit Republicans or Democrats in this year’s election. Colorado’s eight seats currently are evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, with the GOP winning the only true swing district in 2024.

Curtis Hubbard, a spokesman for the group, said in a statement that the proposal seeks to push back against redistricting proposals in Republican states that have been championed by President Donald Trump.

“No one wanted to have to take this action — independent redistricting is the ideal,” Hubbard said. “But with Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans actively working to rig congressional elections, resulting in the potential gain of up to 27 seats in Congress, Colorado must join other states in countering this unprecedented power grab.”

Colorado voters approved a pair of bipartisan amendments to the state constitution in 2018 that tasked independent redistricting commissions with drawing its congressional and state legislative maps. The congressional map that took effect in 2022 has resulted in one extremely competitive seat, the 8th Congressional District; four with a Democratic advantage; and three that lean Republican.

The state is now represented by a 4-4 split of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, even as the state had trended distinctly blue in recent statewide elections.

The new proposals, which were filed for on Wednesday, would pause the independent redistricting map for the 2028 and 2030 elections. The independent commission would draw a new map following the 2030 census to be used for the 2032 election.

The move was criticized by the campaign of U.S. Rep. Gabe Evans, the Republican who won the 8th District race in 2024, unseating a Democratic incumbent.

“For years, Colorado Democrats lectured everyone about the sanctity of the independent redistricting commission and claimed it was the gold standard for fairness,” spokeswoman Alexandria Cullen said. “Now that Coloradans have elected four Republicans to Congress, they want to change the rules. This isn’t about fairness — it¶¶Òőap a partisan power grab to protect their failing extreme agenda from the will of Colorado voters.”

Coloradans for a Level Playing Field filed several proposed ballot measures, a common tactic by advocacy groups to ensure the title board approves one or more.

The proposed map would have seven of Colorado’s eight congressional districts reach into Denver, Boulder or their suburbs and outlying areas — all places with strong Democratic leans. It would leave Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, currently represented by U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, covering the state’s Eastern Plains but ceding some of Douglas County.

Hubbard said his group hopes for an initial hearing by the state’s title board in March and for final approval in April. Backers would then have until Aug. 3 to gather to land the measure on the November ballot.

The independent redistricting commission was created via a voter-approved constitutional amendment. Hubbard’s group filed initiatives for both statutory and constitutional changes in case officials allow for the first option, which is easier to petition onto the ballot.

It would need about 125,000 signatures for a statutory change. For a constitutional change it would need that same number of signatures but with a geographic representation requirement, including support from at least 2% of all voters from each of Colorado’s 35 state Senate districts.

A statutory change would need majority support from voters in November to become law, while a constitutional change would require at least 55% support.

Hubbard declined to name the group’s financial supporters ahead of a May filing deadline with the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.

“We believe we have the support and resources to get this passed in November,” Hubbard said in an interview.

‘We will challenge these,’ conservative group says

Michael Fields, the president of the conservative advocacy group Advance Colorado, promised to fight the measures.

The independent redistricting measures from 2018 had each declared that “political gerrymandering … must end,” and each was approved by more than 70% of voters, he said.

“After reviewing these hyper-partisan ballot measure proposals, we believe that they clearly violate the single-subject provision of our state constitution,” Fields said in a statement. “We will challenge these at Title Board — and up to the Colorado Supreme Court, if necessary.”

Nationally, Republicans kicked off the redistricting war last year in response to the potential of losing seats in the 2026 midterm election, and Democrats responded with their own plans.

Redistricting plans in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, with another proposal proposed in Florida. Texas lawmakers have already approved a new map that could net Republicans five additional seats in November. Republican officials in Missouri and North Carolina have also approved new maps to benefit the GOP in upcoming elections.

In Democratic states, voters in California last fall approved a new map that could net Democrats five more seats. Voters in Virginia will decide in April on letting its lawmakers redraw maps to benefit Democrats ahead of the November midterms.

Court rulings or legislative efforts also could affect congressional districts in New York, Maryland and Utah.

In all, those proposals and efforts may largely counteract each other when it comes to the congressional balance of power, according to The New York Times. by the news organization found that, taken together, the new maps could give Democrats a net advantage of two seats or Republicans a three-seat advantage, depending on how specific scenarios play out.

Hubbard also noted from the U.S. Supreme Court that could undo key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting. Such a ruling could open up further .

“We can sit back and do nothing, or we can take action to approve temporary maps that will help keep our elections on a level playing field,” Hubbard said of his group’s proposal.

Separately, Trump has also called for Republicans to “” voting as he continues to push disproven theories of widespread voter fraud.

Reaction to Colorado proposal

The new Colorado proposal has drawn reactions that fall along partisan lines, including from the state’s members of Congress and candidates in various races this year.

“We cannot sit idly by as a target of Trump’s retribution and depravity,” U.S. Rep. Brittany Pettersen, a Democrat who represents the 7th Congressional District, said in a statement that signaled support for the temporary map. “We must use every chance we have to stand up and fight back and ensure Colorado voters have a choice.”

Zach Kraft, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, called the proposal “gerrymandering at its worst and a blatant power grab by a sketchy, dark-money Democrat organization that refuses to disclose who its donors are.”

Besides Evans, the Republican lawmakers who would be most affected by the new map proposal — U.S. Reps. Jeff Hurd and Jeff Crank — did not return messages seeking comment Wednesday. The Colorado Democratic Party did not provide comment.

Sara Loflin from the left-leaning group ProgressNow Colorado praised the effort. Her group supported Amendment Y, which created the state’s independent congressional redistricting process, because “that was at a time when we all believed that the country was coming out of this Donald Trump, authoritarian” moment.

But she said the redistricting fight nationally, urged on by Trump, called for changes.

“We’re happy about it because Donald Trump forced our hand,” she said. She added that she thought the proposal in Colorado was more democratic than Texas’s redistricting plan, since Colorado voters would get a chance to accept it instead of the change coming through a legislative approach.

Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, avoided taking a position on the redistricting effort through a spokeswoman, who said he’d review any ballot measures closer to the election.

“The next phase will now happen on paper,” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Terry Miller told U.S. District Judge Gordon Gallagher in a courtroom downtown.

Watson, the once-prominent Denver developer behind Northstar Commercial Partners, and his firm were found by nine jurors to have defrauded investors in 11 real estate projects in Colorado and beyond by pledging to invest 5% of their own equity and then not doing so.

The allegations against Watson were civil, rather than criminal, so the punishment he will be dealt may include fines or restitution, along with a ban on the future selling of securities, but not time behind bars. The process for deciding those penalties is unusually convoluted.

In the summer of 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that defendants in civil SEC enforcement actions have the right to a trial by jury, as criminal defendants do. That has forced the SEC to make its case to laypeople, as it did in Watson’s case, rather than administrative judges.

“I am just so thankful to be in front of a nine-person jury today instead of the federal government,” Watson told jurors Jan. 29, the fourth day of the five-day trial.

Unlike in a typical civil trial, jurors were not tasked with deciding how much money the defendant must pay. That will fall on the judge, as it would in a criminal case.

But not yet. First, SEC commissioners must vote on Watson’s punishment. The five-person board has two vacancies, so three commissioners will decide on fines and whether to seek a ban on selling investments. Like Watson, the three commissioners are Republicans.

The board’s decision is expected in late March or April, according to Miller. Gallagher will then make his sentencing decision, which Watson could appeal to a higher court.

Watson’s attorney, Paul Vorndran at Jones & Keller, declined to comment on the process.

Meg Ryan, the SEC’s enforcement director, said in a news release: “We are pleased with the jury’s verdict holding Mr. Watson and Northstar liable for fraud for making material misrepresentations to investors in multiple real estate projects. This case demonstrates the SEC’s continued commitment to protecting investors and holding accountable those who seek to mislead and defraud them. I thank the trial team for its hard work and professionalism.”

Read more from our partner, .