Summary#

SB-176, the “No Kings Act,” was a Colorado bill that would have added a state-court claim for violations of rights under the U.S. Constitution and amended Colorado’s two-year limit for bringing civil actions. Its stated goal was to provide state-court remedies for those violations. The bill failed, so it did not change the law.

• A person in Colorado whose U.S. constitutional rights were violated by someone acting under federal, state, or local law could have sued for legal or equitable relief (such as money or a court order).
• Defendants could have raised absolute or qualified immunity, to the same extent as in similar federal cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• A claim would have had to be filed within two years after it arose.
• A court could have awarded a winning plaintiff attorney fees and, at its discretion, expert fees. A court could also have awarded a defendant fees and costs for claims it found frivolous.
• The bill set special limits for claims against judicial officers: limits on injunctions and on holding an officer responsible for costs, including attorney fees.

What it means for you#

• People claiming a constitutional-rights violation: If the bill had become law, you could have brought this state-law claim for a violation of a right under the U.S. Constitution. The bill did not set out a separate application or review process.
• People sued under the bill: You could have raised absolute or qualified immunity. A court could have ordered relief if you were found liable.
• Judicial officers: An injunction for an act or omission in a judicial role would have been available only if a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. The officer could not have been held responsible for costs, including attorney fees, unless the act or omission was clearly outside the officer’s jurisdiction.
• Colorado and local governments: The bill covered conduct under their laws, customs, or practices, but did not set out a separate government program or agency.

Money#

No publicly available information on estimated public cost or fiscal effects is included in the supplied materials.

• The bill did not set an appropriation, fee, or staffing requirement.
• Lawsuits and possible attorney-fee awards could have created costs, but the materials do not estimate them.

What is unclear#

• The current text of the amended Colorado limitation law was not supplied, so I could not verify how the bill’s changes would compare with current state law.
• The bill does not explain how the new claim would interact with other state or federal claims, or whether overlapping claims could result in multiple awards.
• It does not define key terms such as “deprivation” or “injured party.” It does say that “color of” law includes federal, state, and local law, custom, or usage.
• The bill text does not specify a start date or explain how courts would apply the two-year limit.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to give people alleging violations of federal constitutional rights a claim in Colorado state court.
• A possible argument for the bill is that it would make state courts another place to seek legal or court-ordered relief.
• The bill retained absolute and qualified immunity, which could protect defendants in circumstances where those defenses apply.

Case against#

• One concern is that the bill could have led to litigation and attorney-fee awards without any cost estimate in the supplied materials.
• The bill does not explain how its claim would fit with other available claims, which could leave questions about overlap and awards.
• A possible trade-off is that the bill created a new state claim while retaining broad immunity defenses; the practical reach of the claim would depend on how those defenses apply.