Staff Reports
A new, loud round of legal firepower just rolled into the Tenth Circuit, and it aims right at Colorado’s HB25‑1312 — the law that treats “deadnaming” and “misgendering” as unlawful discrimination in public accommodations. Several free‑speech and conservative legal groups have filed friend‑of‑the‑court briefs backing businesses and organizations that say the law forces speech and punishes beliefs. This appeal is the next big stop in a fight over free speech, pronouns, and whether the state can police how people talk.
What the amicus briefs argue
The briefs press familiar First Amendment claims: the law compels speech, targets viewpoint, and is so vague it chills ordinary talk. Groups like the Manhattan Institute, Independent Women’s Law Center, Southeastern Legal Foundation and the Center for American Liberty jumped into the case to support plaintiffs such as XX‑XY Athletics and Born Again Books. Counsel for some plaintiffs includes Alliance Defending Freedom, and their filings warn that small businesses and speakers should not have to “bet the farm” to find out whether Colorado will punish them for using biologically accurate language or saying what their faith teaches.
Why the Tenth Circuit fight matters
This is not just another courtroom dust‑up. The Tenth Circuit has been busy with related cases that touch the same questions: does a state law reach protected speech, or can officials dodge the constitutional issue on procedural grounds like immunity? Colorado’s statutes and enforcement choices have already been rebuked in other First Amendment disputes, so the outcome here could set a clear rule for nine states or more — and may push the issue up to the Supreme Court. In short: this appeal could be decisive for free speech on gender and sex issues.
Procedural roadblocks and the state’s dodge
Don’t let the legal smoke screen fool you. Colorado officials, led in these suits by the Attorney General’s office, have tried to frame HB25‑1312 as regulating conduct rather than speech, or to raise defenses that let courts avoid the constitutional question. Federal Judge Regina M. Rodriguez declined to block the law earlier, but the appellate record is different and amici argue the statute’s plain text allows enforcement without proof of hostile intent — which means ordinary conversations, blog posts or policies could trigger complaints. If courts accept procedural shields instead of answering the First Amendment claims, the chill on speech remains.
What’s at stake and the road ahead
At stake are simple things: whether a bookstore, a small athletic brand, a doctor’s office or a parent can speak and act according to conscience, science or faith without fear of a state sanction. Governor Jared Polis and Colorado’s defenders may believe they are protecting feelings. But the plaintiffs and their backers warn that protecting feelings cannot erase the First Amendment. The Tenth Circuit will decide whether to block the law, rule on the merits, or punt the question — and that decision will matter far beyond Colorado. Keep an eye on this appeal; it could reshape how courts balance free speech and anti‑discrimination rules for years to come.
