Today is June 19, 2024, and here’s what you need to know:

National Republicans attack Ron Hanks, blast Adam Frisch for 'meddling' in Colorado's 3rd CD GOP primary

A national Republican group on Tuesday unleashed attack ads on Ron Hanks, the state GOP-endorsed candidate running in Colorado’s crowded 3rd Congressional District primary, while accusing Democrats of “propping up” Hanks in order to produce a weaker nominee for the November election.

At the same time, in a move blasted by Republicans as “meddling” in the GOP primary, the Western Slope seat’s presumptive Democrat nominee, Adam Frisch, tapped his massive campaign war chest to launch an ad campaign attacking Jeff Hurd, one of Hanks’ primary rivals.

The competing volleys hit the airwaves a week before ballots are due in Colorado’s June 25 primary, when voters will decide which of six Republicans will face Frisch in the general election. The 3rd CD is currently represented by Republican U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, who moved to another district this year after coming within fewer than 600 votes of losing to Frisch in 2022.

Colorado justices explore limits of anti-discrimination law in Masterpiece Cakeshop appeal

Members of the Colorado Supreme Court explored on Tuesday the tension between LGBTQ customers’ ability to be free from discrimination in the marketplace and business owners’ competing right not to be forced to express messages that violate their conscience.

During oral arguments, some justices noted the difficulty of disentangling customers’ protected characteristics, like race or sexual orientation, from products and services that convey some broader meaning.

“Public accommodations laws are designed to get us away from ‘your kind isn’t welcome here,'” said Justice William W. Hood III. “It feels to many like this just substitutes ‘kind’ with the word ‘message.’ You could imagine a sign that says, ‘Your kind isn’t welcome here,’ cross out the word ‘kind’ and just put in ‘message.'”

Colorado Supreme Court shoots down condo association's lawsuit against Aspen for construction defects

The Colorado Supreme Court clarified on Monday that litigants may not use a judicial doctrine focused on breaches of contract to sue municipalities for negligently constructed housing, effectively sidestepping the broad immunity state law provides to government entities.

The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, with limited exceptions, shields public entities from lawsuits over injuries they cause. Its purpose is to protect tax dollars and prevent a flood of lawsuits from disrupting government services.

However, the condominium association for Burlingame Ranch II, an affordable housing community the city of Aspen developed itself, believed it could hold the city responsible for construction defects in a different way. Instead of claiming negligent construction, which the CGIA would block, the association argued the city breached its contract with homebuyers by not addressing the defects.

Colorado Democrats applaud Biden's latest immigration order, while Republicans call it 'madness'

Colorado Democrats on Tuesday applauded President Joe Biden’s executive order to shield from deportation hundreds of thousands of individuals who are living in the country illegally and are married to American citizens.

Some Republicans, meanwhile, denounced the move as “madness.”

The new policy would provide a path to citizenship to some 500,000 people, as well as the ability to legally work in the country.

Colorado justices narrowly uphold IP-based search warrant, decline to adopt broader rule

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld as constitutional on Monday a warrant that permitted Clear Creek County sheriff’s personnel to search a man’s laptop for child pornography, even though he lived in a unit separate from the target residence and law enforcement was focusing on a different suspect the day of the visit.

Previously, four lower court judges offered three different legal theories for why the warrant, based on the Internet Protocol address associated with the property, was constitutional. But the Supreme Court declined to adopt any of them. Instead, wrote Justice Melissa Hart, the simplest answer was that the warrant reasonably covered Kevin Matthew Dhyne’s basement apartment once Dhyne, himself, volunteered he used the IP address.

“In this case, the basis for probable cause was not particularly named individuals, but rather a particular IP address associated with a physical street address,” she wrote in the June 17 opinion. “Critically, Dhyne told the police that he used the IP address they were investigating, and he lived at that same physical address. His statements tied his apartment to the probable cause.”