Hickenlooper, Governor of Colorado v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc

2014 CO HICKENLOOPER, ca in his official

John of Colo of the State

pacity Governor Colorado, Peti rado, and the State

tioners, FOUNDA RELIGION

FREEDOM FROM Smith; Ha

TION, INC.; David Mike Bailey;

becker; Timothy and Jeff G. Respondents.

Baysinger, No. 12SC442

Supreme Court Case

Supreme Court of Colorado. 24, 2014

November

Attorneys for Petitioners: John Suth- W. ers, General, Domenico, Attorney Daniel D. General, Francisco, Solicitor Michael L. As- General, Grove, sistant Solicitor Matthew D. General, Denver, Attorney Assistant Colora- do.

Attorneys Respondents: Inderwish & Bonifazi, P.C., Bonifazi, Daniele W. John H. Inderwish, Centennial, Colorado, Boardman LLP, Bolton, Madison, & Clark Richard L. Wisconsin.

Attorneys for Amici Curiae The National Day Prayer Task Foree and Colorado Elected Officials and Individuals: Alliance Freedom, Norton, Defending Michael J. Village, Greenwood Colorado. Attorneys for Amicus Curiae The Ameri- can American Humanist Association: Hu- Association, Miller, Washing- manist Monica court, endured psychic harm LLC, hold that Katayoun DC, Donnelly ton, Azizpour media cover a result of Denver, by Respondents as Colorado. Donnelly, A. honorary revealing the existence age American Civil Amici Curiae Attorneys for itself, not, by constitute does Liberties Union, Civil American Liberties individual injury sufficient to establish an Colorado, United for and Americans Union judg Accordingly, we reverse University and State: Separation of Church appeals, Freedom of see ment of the court Law, College Alan K. of Sturm of Denvеr Hickenlooper, 2012 Religion Found. v. Colorado, Denver, Foundation from Chen, ACLU - --, 81, 61, remand to T COA Rich, Silverstein, Colorado, Sara Mark of to re appeals with instructions court of the Denver, Colorado. for trial court dismissal. the case to the turn History and Procedural I. Facts the RICE delivered CHIEF JUSTICE (2 of the Court. passed a resolution Congress In Opinion Prayer," Day of establishing a "National to determine granted certiorari T1 We first officially defined as the later which was Reli Freedom from Respondents whether § 119 Thursday May, see 86 U.S.C.A. of Foundation") ("the and four gion Foundation (1998). recognize state Today, states ("the most Colorado members of its Colorado with the days prayer that coincide wide of members") standing to sue Petitioner have Prayer3 gover Colorado's Day of National ("the Hickenlooper Gover John Governor honorary proclamati annual nor") issuing nor has issued annu capacity in his official Day Prayer of recognizing a Colorado recognize a ons4 honorary proclamations al honorary proclamations Contrary 2004. These Prayer." since Day of "Colorado rе response always been issued the use of have hold that appeals, of court Day Prayer of Task quests from the National incidental overhead the public funds to cover Force")5 ("the past, a In the honorary Force Task issuing the with associated costs steps of the itself, has held on the not, public event been by constitute does proclamations the Colorado Capitol to celebrate Colorado to establish injury an sufficient Prayer.6 Day of Furthermore, contrary to the trial standing. signature not but that do Governor's seal and granted to review Specifically, we certiorari 1. effect of law. The Governor following have the force or the issues: every honorary proclamations by of issues hundreds appeals erred sua court of 1. Whether the recognize array [Respondents] year of events and determining had a broad sponte gov- standing Office organizations. on de minimis the Governor's based despite [Respon- honorary request expenditures occasionally for an denies a ernmental ex- plead requests demonstrate the largе majority or proclamation, dents'] failure of issued, in the district typ- istence of granted. the Governor's Office Once court. honorary publicize ically promote not does erroneously appeals court of Whether their proclamations, does it track or restrict nor forbids constitution the state concluded use. issuing certain governor Colorado from of honorary proclamations. organiza private, nonprofit 5. TheTask Force is Respondents do not we hold that Because promotes values and tion that Judeo-Christian not ad- Governor, we need to sue the every requests prayer proclamations from state issue, goes the merits which dress the second governor an annual basis. legal Respondents' claim. substantive of presented are based on in this section 2. The facts attended Bill Ritter Jr. 6. then-Governor by reported parties' stipulations and facts event, read aloud the where he appeals that are not the court of trial court and proclamation the audi- however, honorary and addressed disputed. event, at this encе. Ritter's attendance analysis for two reasons. irrelevant to our 2007, 2008, 3. For example, First, Respon- only action that honorary proc- fifty governors issued of all states governors' challenge squarely is successive dents acknowledging days pray- lamations or letters honorary proclamations from issuance er. governor's through attendance at a one Day celebrating Colorado event Honorary proclamations documents are official Second, Respondents at- Prayer. none of the by that contain the Governor's Office issued self-identify Respondents, Respondents' who as "non exposure unavoidable to ex- believers," sued the Governor his official coverage tensive media broadcasting the ex- capacity, alleging predecessors that his vio proclamations istence of the to Colorado cit- II, in article lated Preference Clause Emphasizing izens. honorary section of the Colorado Constitution Respondents made "feel like issuing Day Prayer annual Colorado hon political outsiders because do not be- orary proclamations through from 2004 supposed power lieve in the prayer," According Respondents, gov 2009.7 these trial court Respondents found that had al- honorary proclamations- ernment-issued leged injury an sufficient to establish indi- proclaimed day prayer which a statewide Nevertheless, vidual the trial (until 2009) explic Colorado and contained ultimately court concluded that the honor- it biblical references-constituted an uncon ary proclamations did not violate the Pref- religion stitutional endorsement erence granted summary Clause and judg- uniquely Respondents by making harmed ment in favor of the Governor. Thus, political them feel like outsiders. Re Respondents appealed, and the Gover spondents enjoin asked the trial court to the nor cross-appealed. The appeals court of Governor issuing and his successors from affirmed standing the trial court's determina Day Prayer honorary future Colorado of grounds, tion on different holding that Re proclamations previously and to declare the spondents standing had to sue the Governor honorary proclamations issued unconstitu taxpayers.8 as Colorado Conducting an inde tional. The Governor filed a Motion for pendent record, review of the the court of Summary Judgment, Respondents filed appeals determined that funds were Summary Judgment. a Cross-Motion for following expenses used to cover the associ Summary T4 In Judgment, its Order on issuing ated with the Day Prayer Colorado of the trial court first addressed whether Re- honorary proclamations: spondents standing taxpay- had as Colorado * supplies the cost of materials and to cre- Explaining ers to sue the Governor. that a paper proclamations ate for the Task plaintiff "must at least show some use of any person Force and for who thereafter generally" taxpayer taxes establish requested copy; a standing, the trial court concluded that Re- ®postal expenses mailing procla- for spondents standing did not have any mations to the Task Force and to because there in was "no item the State person requested copy; who thereafter budget any expenditure of tax moniеs espace computer on the server relating honorary to the issuance of the copies used to electronic store proclamations." The trial court then con- proclamations; and Respondents standing sidered whether had e to sue as nonbelievers who were offended salaries for members of the Governor's who, duties, honorary proclamations part as a result office of their re- (nor any appellate it in the record. Like the court of Day tended this event other Colorado event), Prayer allege they appeals, only do not we consider experienced unique through harm as a direct result of from 2004 2009. Ritter's event. attendance at appeals 8. Because the court of determined that Hickenlooper actually 7. Governor did not issue Colorado members-all of whom resided sue, any challenged honorary proclamations; standing sepa- Colorado-had it did not rately then-Governor Bill Owens issued the 2004-06 address whether the Foundation-a non- honorary proclamations, profit corporation regis- and thеn-Governor Rit- based Wisconsin honorary proclamations. standing. ter issued the 2007-09 tered to do business in Colorado-had being Hickenlooper ("We Because Governor sued in Religion Found., See Freedom from capacity his official as the current Governor of [the need not further decide whether Founda- standing tion] has because it raises claims Colorado, we hereafter attribute his predeces- parties agree sors' actions to [Colorado members'] him. identical claims."). Pray- Day sep- that the Governor issued a Colorado The Foundation has not raised a Court, honorary proclamation er we the court of arate basis for before this so appeals specific proclama- Respondents' did not address this consider collective based only parties provide copy tion because the did not on the Colorado members' (Colo. 2001) LL.P., Ranch, created, and distribut- ceived, processed, ("Because Wimberly test applied proclamations. ed the contexts, it has become variety of in a Found., Al- 152. Religion Freedom from see, eg., Bar standing."); 'general' test for acknowledged appeals court of though the ber, (applying the Wim- 246-47 196 P.3d at funds at issue amount that the exact determine whether berly test to clear," concluded that nonetheless was "not satisfy the To standing).9 had any public funds to use the Governor's test, establish that Wimberly plaintiff must suffi- honorary proclamations was issue (2) fact, and his injury in he suffered an standing. See id. cient to establish legally protected interest. to a injury was Respon- Reaching merits of 61. at P.2d at Wimberly, Colo. at claim, the court legal substantive dents' Preference trial court's appeals reversed injury-in- prong, the honor- and deemed 19 The first Clause determination separation of maintains the requirement, unconstitutional. fact ary proclamations III of the Colo by article € 142. powers mandated from by preventing courts rado Constitution grant- and we appealed, T6 The Governor spheres. invading legislative and executive review. ed certiorari of an issue judicial determination Because legislative or disapproval may result Analysis II. acts, constitutional basis executive Standing in Colorаdo A. judicial "determination standing ensures that any and all at the suit of may not be had court of de novo the 17 We review Wimberly, 194 public" members Respondents appeals' determination 167, (quoting Ex 570 P.2d at 588 Colo. at Governor. See standing to sue the F.2d City Chicago, 115 Corp. v. -Cell-O of (Colo. 288, Ritter, 245 196 P.3d v. Barber (7th 1940)); 627, Ainscough, see also 629 Cir. 2008). jurisdictional prerequi Standing is a 855-56; Cnty. City v. & at Comrad 90 P.3d of during any time be raised site that can 1982). (Colo. 662, Denver, The P.2d 668 656 Owens, Ainscough v. 90 proceedings. See requirement also finds consti injury-in-fact (Colo. 2004); 851, Trujillo, v. Anson P.3d 855 VI, 1, under in article section tutional roots 2002). (Colo. 114, App. Because 117 56 P.3d inquiries to limit their Colorado courts which of whether a consideration "standing involves Bd. of actual controversies. the resolution of legal on which a basis plaintiff has asserted a Dirs., Dist. Reclomation Metro Wastewater Bd. predicated," can be a claim for relief of Pittsburgh, Co. Fire Ins. v. Nat'l Union Assocs., Cnty. v. Comm'rs Bowen/Edwards (Colo. 2005); 658, City PA, 655-56 105 P.3d (Colo. 1045, 1992), question P.2d 1052 the Pro Vill. v. Petitioners Greenwood for prior to a standing must be determined 427, Centennial, 436-87 City 8 P.8d posed merits, Atnscough, 90 see decision on the (Colo. 2000). sum, injury-in-fact re In If a court determines P.3d at 855. an actual controver quirement ensures that exist, then it must dismiss standing does not proper is a one sy so that the matter exists Ettenberg, Colo. Wimberly v. case. Comrad, 656 P.2d judicial for resolution. (1977). 163,168,570P.2d a "con requirement ensures at 668. The sharpens presen adverseness" that crete articulat Wimberly, this Court City the court. Green of issues to determining whether tation test for two-prong ed a Thus, Vill., although 487. 3 P.3d at standing sue. See wood plaintiff a can establish damage) injuries (e.g., physical tangible has both at 589. This test at 570 P.2d id. injuries (e.g., aesthetic deteri intangible assessing for stand the routine test become environment) satisfy can E. Lake Creek oration of Brotman v. ing in Colorado. taxpayer determining whether a has applied spe a its test we have In some circumstances bring standing an action on Wimberly standing derivative in lieu of the cialized test for behalf See, municipality). circumstances Gustafson, We see no McCroskey P.2d a eg., v. test. Wimberly 1981) (Colo. to deviate from (affirming that would lead us the court of 54-56 Wimberly adopting this instance. appeals' departure from injury fered an as nonbelievers that is suffi requirement, injury injury-in-fact "an cient to establish individual standing.10 Be overly 'indirеct incidental' defen- convey standing, dant's action" will not nor cause we Respondents determine that lack possibility injury. will the remote of a future standing, either form of we dismiss their case 856; Ainscough, 90 P.8d at see-also Wimber- reaching without Respondents' merits of ty, 194 (holding Colo. at 589 legal substantive claim. "(indirect plaintiffs' and incidental pecuniary injury" was insufficient to confer Respondents Taxpayer B. Lack Standing standing). %12 Unlike the United States Su prong, 110 The legal second preme Court's narrow view of ly-protected-interest requirement, promotes standing, consistently this Court has permit Conrad, judicial self-restraint. 656 P.2d at ted taxpayer standing. broad CompareAriz. prudential recog 668. This consideration --Winn, Christian Org. Sch. Tuition unnecessary nizes premature "that deci --, 1486,1442, U.S. 181 S.Ct. 179 L.Ed.2d questions sions of constitutional should be (explaining special "[albsent avoided, parties actually protected and that cireumstances ... cannot be based by a provision statute or constitutional plaintiff's taxpayer"), mere status as a generally best situated to vindicate their own Ainscough, with 90 P.3d at (explaining Vill., rights." City Greenwood 8 P.8d at that Colorado law allows for "broad constitution, 437. Claims for relief under the standing"). Although permitted we have law, statute, the common or a rule or broad class of to have regulation satisfy legally-protected-inter standing, we injury-in- have also utilized the requirement. Ainscough, est 90 P.8d at 856. requirement provide fact conceptual limits Respondents' 111 Because plaintiffs challenge Prefer doctrine when an allegedly unlawful action.11 For ence Clause claim-which derives from arti II, cle section 4 of example, the Colorado Constitu allegedly we have held that unlaw tion-clearly prong satisfies the expenditures second ful or transfers of funds test, Wimberly injuries determina can constitute sufficient to establish hinges See, Barber, tion Respondents taxpayer standing. whether have eg., 196 on alleged injuries-either taxpayers as or as P.3d at (determining plaintiffs 247 that had satisfy individual nonbelievers-that "taxpayer standing challenge the first to the constitu Thus, prong. begin analysis by tionality we our con money from the transfers sidering Respondents whether special have suffered funds to the state's General Fund and expenditure the money сoncomitant of that injury an as taxpayers Colorado that is suffi cient taxpayer standing. to establish We defray general governmental expense, to Respondents next consider whether defray have suf rather than to the cost of services ‍​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‍standing (determining plaintiffs standing 10. We use the term individual to denote that had to.chal- standing that flows from a direct and individual lenge legislative reorganizing depart- a act the injury plaintiff. Importantly, ized individ government); City ments of state Howard v. standing "taxpayer ual is distinct from stand Boulder, 401, 403-04, 237, 132 Colo. 290 P.2d ing," which flows from an "economic interest in (1955) (determining plaintiffs 238 that had stand- having taxpayer's] spent [the tax dollars a ing challenge to an initiated charter amendment Conrad, constitutional manner." 656 P.2d at changing electing city the method of Boulder 668; Brotman, (holding see also 31 P.3d at 892 large councilmen from an election at to an elec- plaintiff taxpayer standing the lacked be geographically tion from created councilmanic cause the defendant's action had "no effect on , - districts). [plaintiff] taxpayer"); the as a Nicholl v. E-470 Auth., 859, (Colo. Highway Pub. 896 P.2d analysis taxpаyer standing 11. We limit our 1995) (noting "taxpayers standing have to against government, here to suits the which can enjoin expenditure seek to an unlawful trigger taxpayer funds"). standing, opposed direct as to standing," So-called "citizen under government, standing suits challenge which a citizen which can has to behalf of government" trigger standing. taxpayer "actual form of under which he is derivative See McCros- key, (establishing eg., 638 P.2d at 56 doctrine of live, to at issue here. See, required not Love, Emps. Colo. State Civil Serv. Ass'n v. standing). taxpayer derivative 436, 442-44, (1968) Colo. 448 P.2d 626-27 add the Gov charged" (emphasis standing because taxpayer to those establish provided Servs., 198 Colo. in the course of Dep't Soc. public funds ed)); Dodge v. ernor used (deter 381-83, honor 71-72 unconstitutional issuing allegedly assuming that the standing Even ary proclamations. taxpayer had mining that pay for the public funds to public funds used expenditure of Governor challenge an person space, postage, and abortions). hard-drive paper, To sat nontherapeutic finance however, Day of Colorado requirement, necessary to issue one injury-in-fact nel isfy the inciden year, clear nexus such Prayer proclamation demonstrate a each plaintiff must sufficiently related are not tal overhead costs taxpayer as a his status between Barber, See government action. challenged as financial contributions Respondents' injury that an (explaining P.3d at nexus for requisite taxpayers to establish incidental" to "overly indirect and were sufficient standing.12 that is If such costs convey not action will challenged government standing, any and all mem taxpayer confer (internal quotation marks standing standing to taxpayer have would bers of omitted)). literally any government action challenge computer, basic required the use of this explicitly articulated T13 most We Arti employee time. or state office supplies, In that in Brotman. requirement nexus Constitution and our III of the Colorado cle adjacent case, an whether we considered expansive re permit not precedent do taxpayer standing to chal- had landowner Respondents Accordingly, we hold that sult. Board of Land Commission- lenge the State injury to estab alleged аn sufficient have not land to parcel of school to sell a ers' decision standing. taxpayer lish at purchaser. 31 P.8d 888-89. third-party generated from "income Emphasizing that Respondents Individual Lack C. management of school Land Board's Standing from and in addition distinct [was] lands the court through taxation we reverse generated income Respondents amount appeals' thus did not affect the determination sehools"-and inquiry standing, conclud- spent on schools-we tax revenue have specific to sell the basis for stand Land Board's decision not limited to the ed that the appeals on the landowner considered. ing land had "no effect" that the court school (Colo. requi- People, 159 P.3d taxpayer. Moody at 892. Absent as a Id. 2007) courts have (recognizing appellate the landowner's status between site nexus land, challenged sale of issues sua authority and the to address factual record did if a sufficient sponte determined that landowner there is issue). Thus, we upon which to resolve Respondents have in next consider whether hand, Respon- Turning to the case basis standing, only other viаble dividual they complaint that are allege in their dents case, based on their standing in this for they But do not assert taxpayers. Colorado who psychic harm as nonbelievers alleged expenditure any injury based on an unlawful coverage the Colo media exposed were to they allege money, nor do of their honorary proclamations. Day Prayer rado in an being used their tax dollars are that Indeed, the trial manner. unconstitutional standing, Colora Like is no item expressly found that court stand provide for broad individual do courts budget" relating to issuance in the State (explain at 856 ing. Ainscough, 90 P.8d and conclud- challenged proclamations of the standing "has test ing that Colorado's expenditure "no that there was ed satisfy"). relatively easy to traditionally been in this case." funds conferring individual Despite tradition of plaintiffs, id. at standing class of to a broad argue that Respondents nevertheless permit individual to we have injury to refused an sufficient they bave suffered City steps and nativity of its scene on the sized unlike the facts Con- This case is therefore 12. building's Building part Christ- rad, County of the formally approp- City of Denver in which the holiday P.2d at 667. decorations. 656 storage display mas of a life- for the riated funds injury standing alleged proclamations when the is indirect and concomitant belief that the proclamations expressed and incidental to the defendant's conduct. pref- the Governor's example, Wimberly religion For we considered simply erence for is too indirect and in- whether the bail-bondsmen had injury incidental an to confer individual standing dividual to the Denver standing. sue District To hold otherwise would render adopting pretrial pro- injury-in-fact Court for requirement release superfluous, as gram any person that allowed criminal defendants to who government learned of a among greater choose number bail alter- action politically media and felt through 165, 168, natives. 194 Colo. at marginalized 570 P.2d at as a result of that secondhand in- media would have individual stand- Emphasizing possible that exposure jury ing government. to the bail bondsmen's business was to sue the Because such a adop- "indirect and already incidental" court's result would stretch our broad con- program, ceptualization tion of the release concluded standing beyond individual standing recognition that the bail did have bondsmen not judiciary beyond thrust limits, to sue. Id. at at 589. its article III Respon- we hold that alleged dents have injury an sufficient to {18 Respondents argue they standing. establish individual injury suffered an as nonbelievers standing sufficient to establish individual III Conclusion they exposed because were to unavoidable Respondents do not have to coverage revealing and extensive media issuing sue Governor for annual Colorado honorary proclama the existence of the Day Prayer honorary proclamations. Specifically, Respondents allege tions. First, we hold that the use of funds to challenged proclamations amount to cover the incidental overhead costs associat- pray" promote "[eJxhortations issuing honorary ed with proclamations religion endorse in violation of the state not, itself, by injury does constitute an suffi- constitution, desig and that the Governor's cient to establish Sec- Day Prayer nation of a "create[s]l a ond, psychic we hold that the harm endured hоstile environment for non-believers" who by Respondents as a result of media cover- they are "made to if political feel as age revealing the honorary existence of the however, Importantly, Respon outsiders." not, itself, by does constitute allege government dents do not injury an sufficient to establish individual participate coerced them to in the Colora standing. Accordingly, judg- we reverse the Day Prayer, do they nor that suffered appeals. ment of the court of Because Re- any negative consequences at the hands of spondents' failure to establish as a result of their non- claim, legal fatal their substantive we re- participation, government pre nor that mand to appeals the court of with instruc- exercising vented them from right their tions return the case to the trial court for short, although Respondents nonbelief dismissal. allege that the Governor violated the Colo Constitution, identify rado "fail dissents, JUSTICE HOOD and JUSTICE any personal injury suffered them as a joins HOBBS in the dissent. consequence alleged constitutional error, psychological other than the HOOD,dissenting. cоnse JUSTICE quence presumably produced by observa ago, 1 21 than More three decades several tion of conduct disagrees." with which one challenged City individuals of Denver's Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. Unit prominent holiday use of funds for a State, Separation ed Church & 454 for (or display, including nativity a life-size seene 464, 485, 752, U.S. 102 S.Ct. 70 L.Ed.2d creche), adorning City the Denver and Coun (1982). 700 ty Building. City Cnty. See Conrad v. & p Denver, 662, (Colo.1982). question we do not the sine- 656 P.2d Des more, erity Respondents' feelings, finding portion without the economic of their ite exposure their honorary injuries very cireuitous "at best indirect and to difficult Second, implicit- it is constitution. they the state had court held this quantify," expansive ly on the notion premised "(Their inter- economic Id. at 668.

to sue. onslaught of lit- an standing invites taxpayer in a spent dollars tax having their est pub- of the "any and all members igation by intangible and "their manner" constitutional undermine our lic," barrage destined 'to a prefer that does not interest a true, were powers; if that separation of religion all over Christian support or should have probably tripartite government entitle to at least sufficient others" were Third, long ago. It hasn't. unraveled reaching this In Id. to be heard. them distinguishable plainly on majority relies judicial conclusion, that "the recognized seope of seeking limit the precedent for appropriate forum the most branch is Fourth, if some even objections to plaintiffs' consideration justified, standing is restriction creche, religious their primarily because individual plaintiffs have established ma- of the may. representative be beliefs injuries al- intangible standing. The community:" at in this jority of citizens right at nature of the flowing from the lege, 668n. 5. issue, for compelling basis provide the most | [22 decidedly different Today, we take a standing in this case. using case to articulate By path. acknowledges, Colora majority litigant's] « 24 As the [a nexus between minimum "clear relatively broad from a challenged gov- plaintiffs do "benefit taxpayer and the as a status Owens, Ainscough v. standing." action," a deaf definition of maj. op. I we turn ernment (Colo. 2004). plaintiff A 90 P.3d religious concern about citizens whose ear to (1) injury in fact only demonstrate some in the need of the echoes that freedom interest. See Wim legally protected significance By diminishing the case. creche 168, 168, 570 Eitenberg, 194 Colo. alleged berly "psychic harm" indirect (1977). inju an "To constitute are not concluding injury may tangible, alleged be ry-in-fact, the individual sufficiently to confer coercive harm, damage or economic physical an such as the issue of when standing, we confuse harm or the intangible, such as aesthetic be heard with when claim should individual's v. Rit Barber deprivation of civil liberties." rejecting By both prevail. it should (Colo. 2008); see ter, 245-46 re- 196 P.3d standing, we abdicate our individual (collecting at 856 Ainscough, 90 P.8d great also a matter of sponsibility to consider cases). Likewise, legally protected inter matter where Colorado public importance-a something as free may as abstract est be the State's executive allege that citizens Barber, 196 P.3d at expression. speech or an individual constitu- violated branch has 668). Comrad, P.2d at (citing who we 246 & n. 9 goes to the core of right tional traditionally relatively been Ultimately, unper- test "has I am This people. are as at satisfy." Ainscough, 90 P.3d easy to Preference Clause plaintiffs' suaded simply not viable under it is claim because Comrad, example, we found jurispru- Clause the federal Establishment relatively modest tax- on the based long guided our construction that has dence spent maintain and store payer funds Nonethe- Preference Clause. of Colorado's majori- n. 5. The P.2d at 668 & crache. 656 less, the merits of we should reach I believe relatively attempts distinguish those ty Therefore, respectful- I plaintiffs' claim. overhead from the "incidental small costs ly dissent. maj. op. 115. issue here. costs" math, distinction is simply on the Based Analysis Standing I. why explains the ma- Perhaps that ‍​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‍tenuous. drop { a footnote analy- jority instead chooses majority's standing reject I First, based on distinguish Comrad departs tries to reasons. sis for several id. appropriation. See of a formal long-standing and broad existence from Colorado's we will hear me as regarding when distinction strikes precedent n.12. But this spends public government If the cases; ability taxpay- artificial. the this undermines really matter unconstitutionally, does it compliance with funds governmental ers to enforce officially approрriated whether it Conrad, them for ate. explained however, As we in Besides, misuse beforehand? this court injury-in-fact the requirement "assure[s] that taxpayer standing challenge found to the use an actual controversy exists so that the mat- to nontherapeutic funds finance ter proper judicial is a one for resolution." Dodge in Department abortions v. Social 656 P.2d at 668. And when requirement that Services, 879, 380, 70, 198 Colo. 600 P.2d satisfied, 70- here, is as I judicial believe it is the (1979), though even legislature the did not branch give must audience because it "is the specific earmark the funds for that purpose. appropriate most forum for consideration of 388, (Dubofsky, Accord id. at 600 P.2d at 72 plaintiffs' objections" the practice to a J., concurring). potentially preference shows a for one set of religious beliefs over another. Id. at 668 n. Regardless, the implications broader are troublesome. Today, drastically we 1 30 In op reduce the its effort to stem what apparent portunity for Colorado ly perceives citizens to be heard as a coming tide of complaints scope on the of a right. By fundаmental jeopardizing separation powers, declaring that the "incidental overhead costs" majority articulates a "clear require nexus" in issuing prayer- Governor incurred Maj. op. ment. plaintiff 112. A must dem day proclamations are insufficient to confer onstrate a "clear nexus between his status as 15, taxpayer standing, maj. op. 1 majority taxpayer and the challenged government violates the principle well-established action." support In proposition, "injury in may fact be found majority absence Ritter, cites Barber v. 196 P.3d injury," Dodge, direct economic 198 Colo. 246, at and Brotman v. East Lake Creek 381, all, at "even Ranch, LLP., 600 P.2d at 71. After (Colo. 2001). 31 P.3d where no implicated, direct economic harm is maj. Granted, See op. 112-13. both cases standing pursue citizen has to his or her (albeit elaboration) state any without ensuring governmental interest units taxpayer standing does not exist when an conform to the state constitution." Nicholl injury "overly indirect and incidental to" Auth., Highway Pub. 896 P.2d E-470 challenged government action. But this (Colo. 1995). governmental Now some court did not standing examine in terms of acts judicial be immune from review any monetary minimum in will Barber. To the simply based on the dollars cents in contrary, recognized we long history of volved-even if those acts violate the Colora taxpayer "broad in the trial and do Constitution. appellate Barber, courts." 196 P.3d at 246 856). (quoting Ainscough, 90 P.8d at And majority

128 The finding cautions that any Brotman did not expenditure involve standing in subject this case would funds; rather, it addressed a trans unmanageable litigation fer of might school lands that have resulted any over official act. It warns if us that generated less income manage from the minimal costs at issue here "were sufficient ment of those lands. 31 P.3d at 891-92. confer standing, any and all Thus, governmental action at issue members of the would have Brotman taxpayer, had "no effect" on the id. challenge literally any government action not the de majority minimis effect the required computer, the use of a basic words, sees here. other simply Brotman supplies, employee office or state time." See required some involving discernible nexus maj. op. alarmist, 115. But this seems con- funds, expenditure some not the indeter sidering that this court applied standing has minate, and nо doubt soon-to-be-shifting, principles broadly for decades without calam- majority "clear nexus" the today. establishes ity. majority 29 The finding worries that tax- right religious 131 The freedom must payer standing here recipe contemplate for im- opportunity press for its creates proper legislative encroachment on the enforcement, margins even at the when the government. executive branches of Otherwise, pecuniary interest is small. maj. op. 11 vigilance 15. Such appropri- risk erosion right. of the core A fundamen- 1012 {34 And, psy ephemeral these however that a law is of constitutional "precept

tal be, they argues that may no one ipso harms provision chic self-executing constitutional controversy as protecting the means of from an actual emanate facto affords fail to VI, 1 of the Colo duty imposed." by article section enforcing required given and right omitted). (citation litigation If the culminat P.3d at 856 rado Constitution. Ainscough, 90 else, nothing protec today proves long provided ing this in our decision has The Indeed, intangible injuries can taxpay largely a proves that it tion and enforcement. "Lif community which be denied adverseness provide of the the "concrete and citizen er , par action ... then of issues that bring presentation such an right sharpens to unchallenged, and the go City See Green wrong argue must to the courts." ties specta to mere reduced citizen City Proposed Vill. v. Petitioners wood for (in City (Colo.2000) 427, v. Centennial, Howard redress." 437 tor without 3 P.3d te 237, 401,404, 238 Boulder, 132Colo. omitted). marks quotation rnal 1955). (Colo. example of provides another Conrad engage in the chal- than But rather in a case which adverseness this concrete making task of impossible, lenging, if not part standing premised in we found expenditures modest based on distinctions that government "intangible interest (and stretching risk tax- taxpayer resources support the Christian prefer or does not should), than we standing further payer 656 P.2d at 668. religion over all others." simply focus on sense to much more makes despite the injury intangible sufficed That intangible on the based individual "general- Supreme Court's admonition motivating lawsuit. See injuries ‍​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‍that are qualify. Id. at 669 grievance[s]" do not ized 490, 500, Seldin, 95 S.Ct. 422 U.S. Warth Forge Coll. v. Ams. (citing Vаlley Christian (1975) (stating that an 45 LEd.2d State, Separation Church & United on the nature and source injury "often turns 464, 488-85, Inc., 102 S.Ct. U.S. asserted"). of the claim (1982)). L.Ed.2d 700 all, seriously argue no one can After {36 majority nonetheless discounts The plaintiffs are Clause these Preference injuries as too "indirect" intangible these an infinitesimal by prospect of roused plaintiffs learned standing because the justify Instead, they tax burdens. reduction in their through the media. proclamations of the feelings govern- by their are motivated "secondhand," expo- their contact was Their religious exclusion. In es- ment-sponsored Yet, maj. op. 119. See sure "cireuitous." sence, Justice O'Connor they agree with nature, by very are al- their proclamations, endorsing religion "sends a always experienced in this fashion. most they are out- message to nonadherents public Ritter's Setting aside former Governor siders, political com- full members of the attend), (which plaintiffs did not reading message accompanying munity, and an known could have no member of insiders, favored are adherents cov- proclamations absent media these about community." political members dis- proclamations were never erage. The Donnelly, 465 U.S. Lynch v. (O'Connor, 1355,79 LEd.2d 604 tributed, memorial- displayed public, or or S.Ct. any way-except as a news item. J., ized plaintiffs allege The that the concurring). manifesta- have no concrete a Proclamations prayer proclamations created Governor's seals, symbols. signs, They are not as non-believ- tion. for them "hostile environment" outsiders," proclamations on pass these You cannot ers, "political like made them feel not find them your way to work. You will "unwanted exposed them to park or carved on in a religion," erected public celebrations of prayer and If this entrance. courthouse them to "official admonitions" direct/indirect subjected majority dispositive, as were prayer, and exhorted distinction power of about ever have stand- then no one would suggests, "psychic These harms" pray. them proclamation challenge any prayer ing injuries that the Prefer- the sort of precisely attend, designed guard against. physically even did not ence Clause that he or she proclamation clearly plaintiffs' if that violated the Pref- merits the govern- claim that the erence Clause. mental action in this case pref- shows actual erence support particular or for a religion context, In I 137 see no difference meaning within the of this pro- constitutional through between unwelcome direct contact vision."). exposure media and unwelcome direct con cross, créche, seal, sign, sym tact with a or hold, T40 I would in accordance with Colo- through in-person exposure. bol That a long-standing, rado's application broad proclamation is "announced rather than dis standing principles, plaintiffs' that allega- played preclude does not unwelcome direct intangible tions of injury in this context are contact." Ariz. Civil Liberties Union sufficient to confer Their claim (D. Dunham, F.Supp.2d Ariz. should be decided on the merits. 2000) (reasoning reported proclams that a Analysis tion can be "more than II. invasive a visual Merits given display" pervasiveness modern approach Unlike our standing, we coverage). media traditionally approached Preference majority by 1 38 What the must mean then Clause looking cases to the federal Estab- plaintiffs' intangible injuries that the are sim- lishment Clause and the construing case law ply enough. maj. it. op. Supreme substantial Because the Court now uses gleans One T19. that much from what the coercion as the touchstone for cases not in- majority "important": government volving finds physical religious symbols, I believe plaintiffs pray, pun- never forced the or that we should foeus on whether there is so, refusing none, ished them prohibit- to do coercion here. Because there is fails, exercising right plaintiffs' ed them from their not to do claim but it fails on the mer- enough. Injuries so. Id. T18. True its. flagrant obviously sufficient to confer proclamation 1 42 Each at issue here ref standing, but we have never closed the court- (1) things: erences five the Declaration of alleging egregious house door to those less Independence and its notion "[that all men

violations. equal, they are created by are endowed By closing today, major-

1 39 that door their Creator with certain unalienable ity life, plaintiffs' Rights," including liberty, conflates with the like- pur and the effect, (2) happiness;2 lihood of success on the merits. In Day suit of the National majority prohibits Prayer, by from in established 1952 and "defined bringing a Reagan Preference Clause claim because President Ronald as the first Thurs prove day May," failed to a violation in their in "provides com- which Americans with Yet, plaint. in congregate Conrad we underscored the the chance to in celebration of (8) need to at rights"; least consider claims in this con- these endowed citizens' freedom text, they ultimately even if gather, worship, pray, fail. 656 P.2d at and both in ("Our holding prudential (4) re- private; and in a Judeo-Christian biblical quirement 28:7, passage, rule has been sat- such as Psalm "The Lord is shield, plaintiffs' allegations my isfied is based on the strength my and heart trusts Him, helped"; and I am an acknowl- equivalent holding and is not on the complaint only they "recogniz[ed] 1. focuses on the God" because the need for proclamations, spiritual guidance." 2007 and 2008 the record con- appeals addresses-proc- tains-and the court of proclama- lamations from 2004 to The proclamation "acknowledges 3. The 2004 Leviti- through by tions from 2004 2006 were issued yearly cus 15:10" and the theme for the national Owens; former Governor Bill day prayer, Ring." "Let Freedom The 2005 to through from 2007 2009 were issued former proclamations actually quote pas- biblical Ritter, Governor Bill Jr. sages yearly that relate to the theme. In ("Let passage quoted is Hebrews 4:16 us then confidence, proclamation slightly approach grace 2. The format of the 2004 the throne of with so referring may grace mercy help different. Instead of to the Declaration that we receive and find need") theme, Independence, it states our forefathers us our time of and the "God country passage founded this as "One Nation Under Shed His Grace on Thee." to an it was "well-suited II because proclama- Conrad day of the on the edgement part appearing as nativity seenes analysis of across this state "individuals

tion some II, 724 holiday display." Conrad larger country, for our prayer unite nation will Freedom, applied And P.2d at 1314. leaders, people." state, our our "provide{d] test because "refined" Lemon's {43 prohibits Clause The Preference evaluating analytical framework for a sound religion over favoring one from symbols." religious use of governmental State secularism. religiosity over another or Alleghe- Freedom, (quoting P.2d at 1021 Found., P.2d 898 Religion From v. Freedom 3086) 592, 109 S.Ct. ny Cnty. 492 U.S. ")4 1995) ("Freedom (Colo. 1013, 1019 omitted). (internal marks quotation Prefer scope of the evaluating the 44 In is not a "reli proclamation 47 Because Clause, consistently looked to we have ence is question whether Lemon gious symbol," I and Clause federal Establishment evaluating its constitutionali to "well-suited" light In of that construing it. Id. law case observation, in both ty, especially given constitutionality law, upheld we case chosen cases, Supreme Court has City and at Denver's displayed of the créche involving the in cases apply Lemon City Cnty. v. & County Building, see Conrad prayers. Con constitutionality of 1986) (Colo. 1309, Denver, P.2d 1317 724 II, (citing v. n. 6 Marsh 724 P.2d at 1814 rad ("Conrad. II"), as a Ten Command as well 3330, 783, Chambers, 77 108 S.Ct. 463 U.S. Lin in Denver's displayed monument ments (1983)); Freedom, P.2d at 898 1019 L.Ed.2d Freedom, Park, at 1026-27. 898 P.2d coln see Weisman, U.S. (citing Lee v. 505 1021 n. 8 (1992)). 2649, 577, 467 120 L.Ed.2d 112 S.Ct. II, Supreme applied In Conrad we 45 view, provide Lee a better my v. Kurtz Marsh and three-part test from Lemon In 'Court's 2105, 602, L.Ed.2d man, 91 S.Ct. in 408 U.S. framework to assess (1) steady trend (1971). Supreme Court's light a law has a of the whether It asks: (2) Establishment principal or coercion-based whether its towards purpose; secular or inhibits advances effect either primary jurisprudence. Clause an exces whether it fosters religion; and constitutionality of upheld 1 48: Marsh religion. Id. at 612- with sive entanglement open- legislature's practice of Nebraska Freedom, applied a 13, In 91 S.Ct. prayer. with a ing each of its sessions "wheth Lemon that asks "refined" version of 792, The State 108 S.Ct. 8830. U.S. at pur act has 'the suspect government er the Marsh, intimating that it much of makes religion."" 898 "endorsing" pose or effect of enduring prac- upholding historical justifies Cnty. v. (quoting Allegheny at 1021 tices, consti- questionable if are of even 3086, 573,592, ACLU, 109 S.Ct. 492 U.S. aside tutionality: "It makes no sense to cast (1989)). L.Ed.2d 472 openly content exhortative as irrelevant prayer proclamations Colo- historic ubiquity, our deci- Despite Lemon's declaring then unconstitutional rado while cases was calculated apply it both sion honor- of the modern the more mild content applied Lemon preordained. We and not me, person ("Those guaranteed; shall be and no I will hereafter be who honor 1 Samuel 2:30 "America, theme, honor") privilege political right, any Honor God." or and the civil or denied ("If my passage opinions concerning is 2 Chronicles 7:14 In capacity, of his on account name, by my will humble people, who are called hereby liberty religion; of conscience but my pray face and turn and and seek themselves dispense with not be construed secured shall ways, will I hear from wicked then from their affirmations, excuse ‍​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‍acts licentious- oaths or forgive and will heal and will their sin heaven justify practices with the inconsistent ness or land"), with no theme listed. their order, safety peace state. No good or of this 28:7, body of passage set forth in the is Psalm as any support person required or be to attend shall proclamation does not this dissent. The worship, religious ministry place sect or or quote the Bible. reference any against Nor shall his consent. denomination religious given by any derom- preference law to be portion Constitu- of the Colorado 4. The relevant II, worship." Colo. Const. art. states:, ination or mode "Religious free exer- freedom. The tion added). gen- (emphasis § The last sentence is religious profession enjoyment cise and discrimination, Clause." as "the Preference referred to worship, shall forever without ary proclamations." "history majority But even if the gave specific "Marsh in fact recog- replete placed tradition of our Nation are with nition to this distinction and particular reliance on it." featuring prayers ceremonies Lee, thanksgiving petition," 505 U.S. at cases, glean 1151 From those I two broad (Scalia, J., dissenting), 112 S.Ct. 2649 as First, principles. the United States Su- claims, "Marsh must not be under State preme Court appear apply does not Lem- permitting practice stood would involving public prayer, on to cases perhaps if amount a constitutional violation not for simply because that test is not "well-suited" foundation," its historical Town Greece II, to them. See Comrad 724 P.2d at 1314. - -, Galloway, U.S. 134 S.Ct. Second, presence Marsh and Lee turn on the (2014). 1819,188L.Ed.2d 835 or absence of inquiry, coercion. That turn, depend seems to on two factors: the Marsh, how are So we to understand (whether nature of the intended audience if not for its historical foundation? adults, Marsh, composed as in or "sus- analytical the Court focused much of its ener- adolescents, ceptible" Lee); as in and the gy analysis, on the historical the absence of (whether nature of voluntary, attendance it is played deciding coercion role in its decision Marsh, Lee). compulsory, as in or as in prayers. opening to allow The Court rea- prayers "proselytiz- soned that the were not recognize T 52 I Supreme that the Court's ing" people claiming injury- and that the Establishment jurisprudence Clause has not readily susceptible mature adults-were "not consistency, been a model of any attempt and religious peer pressure." indoctrination or glean consistency from its cases-or draw (inter- Marsh, 468 U.S. at 103S.Ct. 3880 any categorical conclusions-is an exercise omitted). nal citations and marks fraught peril. with plain But it seems quotation words, In other the absence of coercion- the trending away Court has been from Lem prayers either in the content of the or the оn, which Justice Scalia saw fit to liken to a they given-supported context in which were "ghoul late-night in a horror movie that re holding. the Court's peatedly up grave sits in its and shuffles abroad, being repeatedly after killed and analysis, perhaps only 150 That coercion Chapel buried." Lamb's v. Center Moriches Marsh, an undercurrent in the was Court's Dist., 384, 398, Union Free Sch. 508 U.S. overarching Finding prayers concern in Lee. (1998)(Scalia,J., S.Ct. 124L.Ed.2d 352 graduation before school ceremonies concurring). unconstitutional, the Court focused on the "heightened protecting concerns with free- 153 And the Court's recent decision in pres- dom of conscience Rely- from subtle coercive Town Greece continues that trend. Marsh, elementary sure in the secondary public ing and on upheld the Court Greece's Leg, schools." practice opening monthly meetings U.S. S.Ct. board Greece, prayer. with a Town 184 S.Ct. at "peer pres- 2649. That coercion included Although the Court referenced the (especially pronounced sure" to conform in adolescents) "susceptible" graduation significance and the long-standing histоrical tradi- tions, compulsory ("voluntary" analysis emphasized ceremonies' nature the Court's sense). only in considering most formalistic Id. at absence of when coercion 598-95, 2649; Freedom, setting 112 S.Ct. see also and the audience. See id. at 1825. A ("School religion plurality 898 P.2d at 1028 Kennedy, cases re- of the Court-Justice quire stringent analysis by a more joined because of Justice Chief Roberts and Justice affected, age nonbelieving minds and because Alito-noted if "mature audiences, distasteful, captive especially prayers they students are adults" found the influence."). susceptible to The Court then could leave and "their absence not [would] distinguished involving Marsh "adults disrespectful stand out as or even notewor- legisla- thy." are free to (concluding [who] enter leave" the Id. at 1825-27 there is no tive "with any impermissible by exposing sessions little comment and for coercion constitu- Lee, prayer they number of reasons." 505 U.S. at ents to would rather not hear above, they 112 S.Ct. participate). 2649. As discussed and in which need not prayer Sealia, Exposing constituents to cion. Thomas, con- joined Justice Justice read) (or not hear does through rather not legal coercion" would "actual cluded that to con- penalty worship. sufficient compel threat of law and force of 119), maj. op. majority (notwithstanding noted that but also fer standard injuries neverthe- alleged offense does plaintiffs' concluded that properly J., (Thomas, at 1888 a Preference to establish equate to coercion. less insufficient in concurring Supreme Court's concurring part violation under Clause justice single used Not judgment). framework. coercion test. "endorsement" Lemon states, "WHERE- proclamation Each it, continues I read Town Greece \ 54 As AS, indi- proclamation], date of [the migration-at jurisprudential the Court's nation will unite this state and viduals across prayer context-towards in the least state, country, our prayer for our coercion is the under which framework plaintiffs claim people." The and our leaders Dog, Sch. Dist. v. See Elmbrook benchmark. an exhortation to component constitutes - 2283, 2284, -, 134 S.Ct. U.S. acknowledge- simply an pray, rather than J., (2014) (Scalia, dissenting LEd.2d people pray. will But the that sоme ment certiorari) ("Town Greece denial of from suggests to me the word "whereas" use of antiquated 'endorsement abandoned recognizing that simply the Governor is categorically clear that it "made test'" prayer engage will many people of faith equate to coer ... does not 'mere offense so, to do not that he is beseech- when invited proper any manner relevant cion' engage in a mode ing pray individuals Indeed, analysis."). Clause Establishment worship. any continued Lemon has unclear whether [57 Finally, mindful of our role here. I am funding government of vitality at all outside sure, duty-bound to evaluate be To symbols. display religious physical of for the action, constitutionality of lead, I Following Supreme Court's 1 55 issuing prayer proc including the Governor's proclamations using the evaluate the would unlike proclamations, those lamations. But that these framework and conclude coercion enactments, legislative universally applicable the Prefer- do not run afoul of proclamations speech law.5 Evaluat are more akin to than proclamations are not Clause. These ence court into ing speech would thrust In- "susceptible" adolescents. directed at parsing that of an uncomfortable role: deed, anyone. They at they are not directed speech censoring the Governor's potentially are, proclaimed, an- suggests, name as the the constitution religious content. While nounced, captive There is no audi- or issued. system may governmental al balance of our are not read be- proclamations These ence. so, separation-of- power to do give us the subjected legislative sessions. No one is fore certainly counsels caution. powers concern ceremonies, during such as to them unrelated that adult If "tradition assumes By proclaiming a graduation. high a school beliefs, citizens, toler- firm in their own can Day Prayer," the Governor nev- of "Colorado a ceremonial perhaps appreciate participate in the ate and er "directed a different by person a opprobri- prayer delivered singled out dissidents for prayers, faith," it must also be assumed um, might be then decisions [his] or indicated something far less can tolerate acquiescence adult citizens by person's influenced Greece, proclamation urging appreciation intrusive: prayer opportunity." Town of power prayer. See Town of the of a plaintiffs take 1826. The offense S.Ct. at Greece, majority, Like the 134 S.Ct. at 1828. proclamations, but these feel excluded Greece, is not coer- sincerity plain- Town offense question under [the I "do (last gov/govhdir/requests/proclamation.html vis- Hickenlooper's current website de- 5. Governor 21, 2014). "non-binding "[pJrocla- docu- It also notes that ited Nov. scribes signed by of Colorado in imply the Governor ments nor Governor mations neither indicate significant special issue, recognition events or is- given pro- Hickenlooper's support any Portal, State Web Colorado, The Official ject sues." or event." Hickenlooper, http://www.colorado. Gov. John feelings." Maj. op. 119. But tiffs'] adults speech disagreea-

"often encounter find

ble; and an Establishment Clause violation is any person experiences

not made out time a expression

a sense of affront from the Greece,

contrary religious views." Town of Rather, "part learning

134 S.Ct. pluralistic society" learning

how to live in a contrary

how to "endure" ideas and to coun- perspective. ‍​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‍ter them based on one's own

Lee, 505 U.S. at 112S.Ct. 2649.

T I 59 would hold that

failed to establish Preference Clause viola judgment

tion and would reverse the appeals holding

court of otherwise.

I am authorized to state that JUSTICE joins

HOBBS in the dissent.

2013 COA 143 Colorado,

The PEOPLE of the State of

Petitioner-Appellee,

INthe INTEREST OF Gabriel VIVEK

ANATHAN, Respondent-Appellant. Appeals

Court of No. 13CA1203 Appeals,

Colorado Court of

Div.VII.

Announced October

As Rehearing Modified Denial of December 2013

Case Details

Case Name: Hickenlooper, Governor of Colorado v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc

Court Name: Supreme Court of Colorado

Date Published: Nov 24, 2014

Citation: 338 P.3d 1002

Docket Number: Supreme Court Case 12SC442

Court Abbreviation: Colo.