The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday threw out a decades-old rule restricting the ability of local governments to sue over state decisions, finding “confusion has developed” over who can seek judicial review and when.

At the same time, in a pair of decisions, the justices concluded Adams County School District 14 could not challenge the state board of education’s order to reorganize in the face of poor performance, nor could Weld County litigate the air quality commission’s inspection requirements for oil and gas wells.

The lawyer for Adams 14, however, said the decision on the district’s underlying claims will have no effect because the Colorado State Board of Education recently backed down from its reorganization directive. Instead, the Supreme Court walking away from its own rule will be beneficial for local governments across the state, said Joseph A. Salazar, a former legislator from Thornton. 

“That’s a huge freaking win,” he added. “Every school district, every county and municipality will now have the right to sue the state when they’re harmed.”

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office, which represented the state against both Adams 14 and Weld County, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Previously, both plaintiffs ran into trouble in the lower courts because of the “Rule of Martin.” “Martin” is not a person but a 1976 Supreme Court decision recognizing that government entities cannot seek judicial review of a state agency’s actions when they are “subordinate” to the agency in question and the law has not authorized them to sue.

The rule’s purpose was to ensure the courts were not roped into conflicts between executive branch agencies. However, Justice Monica M. Márquez explained in the Adams 14 opinion that the Supreme Court instead “generated unnecessary confusion.”

Although the rule traced back to 1897 and originally addressed local officials’ obligations to follow state law, the Supreme Court eventually created the Rule of Martin with the understanding that, in instances where local governments are “arms of the state,” they cannot sue an agency without authorization.

The rule’s mutation, wrote Márquez, “was never directly supported by the precedent on which it claimed to rely.”

During oral arguments in the cases earlier this year, the state insisted it was inappropriate to give a “disappointed political body” the chance to use the court system to force a redo of state decision making.

“If the courthouse door is open to school districts themselves to say, ‘I disagree with this. I disagree with that. The legislature can’t make me do this,'” argued former solicitor general Eric R. Olson, “what you’ve done is you’ve thrown sand in the gears of a system.”

But Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. observed that, under the rule, a state agency can effectively serve as the prosecutor, the judge and the appellate body, with no opportunity for the courts to review unreasonable decisions.

“Sure, that’s more efficient than if the courts are involved. But is that really the best system and should we worry about that kind of system?” he wondered.

Without addressing Samour’s question, the Supreme Court concluded judges should follow the routine procedure for determining whether a government entity has standing to sue, instead of the additional hurdle the Rule of Martin presented.

In the case of Adams 14, the justices determined the reorganization of school district boundaries and leadership, as allowed under state law, did not harm the district’s control of instruction as guaranteed in the Colorado Constitution.

“Moreover, the State Board actions that Adams 14 challenges are expressly permitted or required by the Education Accountability Act,” Márquez wrote on Oct. 16.

Weld County, on the other hand, challenged the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission’s adoption of new regulations in 2020 governing the inspection of wells for leaking gas. The county, which is the largest producer of oil and gas in the state, estimated that 35% of well operators would have to shut down if the new rules passed.

Following the commission’s adoption of the regulations, Weld County sought judicial review, alleging the commission failed to follow proper procedure during the rulemaking and give priority to the county’s concerns.

Leaving the Rule of Martin aside, the court determined Weld County had not shown the commission harmed any protected rights of the county.

“The statutory mandate that the Commission ‘give priority’ to Weld County’s concerns cannot dictate a particular allocation of time during a hearing or mean that Weld County will always get its way,” wrote Justice Melissa Hart.

She also rejected the county’s argument that additional inspection requirements would encroach on Weld County’s land use authority and increase costs for oil and gas operators, leading to a decline in production and lower tax revenues.

“Oil and gas producers can still operate anywhere; those operations are merely subject to increased inspections and emissions requirements,” Hart countered.

Salazar, the lawyer for Adams 14, said scrapping the Rule of Martin will provide an incentive for the state to collaborate more with local governments in order to avoid legal challenges.

“The wide-ranging effect of this decision is gonna reverberate through this state for decades to come,” he said. “It’s an absolute power shift.”

The cases are Weld County Board of County Commissioners v. Ryan and Colorado State Board of Education v. Adams County School District 14.