275 P.3d 723
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hotaling sues Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment alleging contracts funded under federal programs violate Colo. Const. Art. V, §50 (public funding for abortion).
- Programs are the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program and Title X Family Planning; funds flow to the Department to be allocated to grantees subject to federal rules.
- Contracts in 2007 were awarded to Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain Services Corp. and Boulder Valley Women's Health Center; all money involved is federal money and not used for abortion by the recipients.
- Hotaling asserts the contracts allow the recipient to subsidize abortion by reallocating funds to abortion services, thereby violating Art. V, §50.
- District court dismissed for lack of Colorado taxpayer standing because the funds are federal; the court did not reach merits.
- On appeal, the issue is whether Hotaling, as a Colorado taxpayer, has standing to challenge the contracts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge federal funds | Hotaling as a Colorado taxpayer has standing to enforce Art. V, §50. | No nexus between taxpayer status and the challenged action since funds are federal and custodial. | No standing; dismissal affirmed. |
| Nexus requirement for taxpayer standing | Barber broad view grants standing when constitutional violation alleged. | Nexus between taxpayer and action is required; here none. | Nexus required; not satisfied. |
| Effect of federal character of funds on standing | Federal funds administered by the state can still implicate state constitutional provisions. | Funds remain federal and have no state-money nexus to Hotaling. | No standing because no injury-in-fact to a Colorado taxpayer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dodge v. Dep't of Social Services, 198 Colo. 379, 600 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1979) (taxpayer standing for allegedly unlawful expenditure of funds to fund abortions)
- Conrad v. City & County of Denver, 656 P.2d 662 (Colo. 1982) (standing to enjoin unlawful expenditure of city funds)
- Nicholl v. E-470 Pub. Highway Auth., 896 P.2d 859 (Colo. 1995) (standing to challenge constitutional prohibitions on revenue/debt)
- Barber v. Ritter, 196 P.3d 238 (Colo. 2008) (taxpayer standing to enforce constitutional provisions; nexus requirement implied)
- Ainscough v. Owens, 90 P.3d 851 (Colo. 2004) (liberal approach to taxpayer standing; nexus considerations discussed)
- Brotman v. East Lake Creek Ranch, L.L.P., 31 P.3d 886 (Colo. 2001) (taxpayer standing requires nexus between tax status and challenged action; Land Board context)