Welcome to Court Crawl, Colorado Politics’ roundup of news from the third branch of government.

At least one federal judge in Colorado received an executive branch email over the weekend demanding a list of recent work accomplishments, and a federal appellate decision contained an interesting clue about the possible behind-the-scenes deliberations.

‘What did you do last week?’

•  On Saturday, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management sent an email to federal employees with the subject line “What did you do last week?” The message gave employees until 11:59 p.m. on Monday to summarize “what you accomplished at work last week” in a bullet-pointed list. The demand originated with billionaire Elon Musk, who claimed a failure to respond would amount to a resignation.

•  The email also made its way to the judicial branch, which, as readers are likely aware, is not part of the executive branch. U.S. District Court Senior Judge John L. Kane, a Jimmy Carter appointee and the longest-serving judge on Colorado’s federal trial court, told Colorado Politics he received the Musk demand. He said that pursuant to advice from the judiciary’s administrative office, he ignored it.

•  “I don’t know who else got it but anyone else was also advised to ignore it,” Kane said.

•  The clerk of the district court, Jeffrey P. Colwell, also sent an email to court staff around 4:30 p.m. on Saturday with similar guidance to disregard the email.

•  “But, if you want to stop by my office on Monday and tell me how your weekend was — feel free,” Colwell wrote.

•  Representatives from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which is also headquartered in Denver, didn’t immediately respond about the court’s exposure to the Musk email.

State Supreme Court news

•  The Colorado Supreme Court stepped in to provide guidance for a pair of Weld County criminal cases that were derailed by the accidental disclosure of confidential defense information to the prosecution. The justices gave instructions to the trial judge before he makes the ultimate decision of whether a new prosecutor’s office is required to take over the cases.

•  Although there may be some instances where a child welfare worker would need to give a Miranda warning before interrogating parents in custody, the Supreme Court concluded such advisements aren’t required — even if the interviews will later be shared with law enforcement for a criminal prosecution.

•  The justices considered whether Boulder County and the city of Boulder may proceed with their suit against fossil fuel producers for the alleged financial harms locally from climate change.

•  Some justices were concerned about making it easier for parties to avoid the terms of their contract and sue for negligence regardless of what they negotiated in their agreement.

•  The Supreme Court also appeared hesitant to say that defendants serving in non-residential community corrections programs are entitled to time-served credit if they return to prison, considering the legislature has not explicitly enacted that policy.

•  The Supreme Court discussed what to do with a civil defendant’s medical records, which are allegedly confidential in their entirety but apparently were incorporated into a publicly available police report.

•  The justices considered whether a plaintiff who prevailed in his medical malpractice lawsuit for injuries sustained at birth should be allowed to receive interest on the jury’s award from the time of his birth to the time his parents filed suit.

•  The Supreme Court has also accepted a case out of Morgan County — in which none of the filings is publicly accessible — that asks whether “computer-generated images created digitally via artificial intelligence can constitutionally qualify as ‘sexually exploitative material’ for purposes of the crime of sexual exploitation of a child.”

Heard on appeal

•  Exactly one year after the state Supreme Court walked back an overly broad rule the Court of Appeals adopted, the appellate court once again found an Olathe police officer wasn’t entitled to immunity for slamming into a van during a high-speed pursuit and killing its occupants.

•  The Court of Appeals, in analyzing Colorado’s requirement that parents be “present” during police interrogations of their children, rejected the idea that parents need to be “attentive” in addition to being physically nearby.

•  A Mesa County judge used an analogy involving a clearly blameworthy child when illustrating the constitutional right to silence. The Court of Appeals wasn’t thrilled with the comparison, but believed that the commentary did not affect the trial.

•  The Court of Appeals ruled that employers can’t deduct their own business costs from employees’ wages, even if there is a written agreement purportedly allowing them to do so.

10th Circuit intrigue

•  In a 2-1 decision, the 10th Circuit ruled that El Paso County’s classifications of trans detainees according to their sex assigned at birth does require more stringent justification because it is, in fact, based on sex and not transgender status.

•  The vote breakdown was Judge Veronica S. Rossman, a Joe Biden appointee, and Senior Judge David M. Ebel, a Ronald Reagan appointee, in the majority. Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, a George W. Bush appointee, dissented. The majority and dissenting opinions exceeded 100 pages total, along with a brief concurrence from Ebel.

•  “I want to compliment both Judge Tymkovich and Judge Rossman for their careful and thorough analysis on these issues, and I am confident that their conflicting opinions will contribute to the further evolution of the law in this case,” wrote Ebel, stressing the difficulty of the appeal.

•  However, one thing caught Court Crawl’s eye. It was this line midway through Rossman’s majority opinion:

•  Now normally, the first person singular is reserved for dissenting or concurring opinions, not majority decisions. Does this mean that Rossman’s opinion was originally a dissent, and this one line never got changed? If so, that would mean Ebel changed his vote from what was originally a 2-1 decision going the other way.

•  That’s all speculation, as we will likely never know the answer. But if Ebel did, in fact, switch sides, his complimentary concurrence toward both opinions would support that theory.

In other federal news

•  The 10th Circuit ruled that a Lakewood police sergeant didn’t violate a man’s constitutional rights by fatally shooting him as the sergeant was trying to evacuate the man from a burning basement.

•  Lawyers who are challenging the legality of a collegiate policy for transgender athletes have asked the judge assigned to the case, U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews, to recuse himself because his courtroom protocols require participants to address each other with their “applicable pronouns.” It’s a rule of decorum that five other judges on the district court use, as well.

•  Meanwhile, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel D. Domenico has been assigned a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s ability to round up undocumented immigrants in schools. It puts Domenico in an uncomfortable position, as someone who may be seeking an appointment to the 10th Circuit should a vacancy arise in the next four years.

•  A federal judge refused to dismiss a man’s lawsuit against Pueblo School District 60 for removing his critical Facebook comments and temporarily blocking him from posting.

•  A federal judge has allowed an alleged human trafficking victim’s lawsuit to proceed against the operator of a Fort Collins motel where her trafficking occurred.

•  A jury will decide whether a Denver police sergeant violated a man’s constitutional rights by arresting him outside of Denver Union Station while he was protesting.

•  An Englewood woman seeking the removal of President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance from office needs to explain why she has standing to sue, a federal judge ordered.

Vacancies and appointments

•  The governor appointed chief deputy district attorney Toni J. Wehman to succeed the late District Court Judge Sharon Holbrook in the 17th Judicial District (Adams and Broomfield counties).

•  The lieutenant governor, in carrying out the responsibilities of the governor, has appointed Ian J. Kellogg, an attorney with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, to succeed former Denver District Court Judge Darryl F. Shockley.

Miscellaneous proceedings

•  The state Senate is considering a scaled-back version of the Judicial Department’s request to add new judgeships over the coming years. The original plan was for 29 new judges over two years, but the current version of the bill is less ambitious.

•  Two Court of Appeals judges and a Supreme Court justice spoke about when and how they reach compromises on the decisions each court issues.

•  Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez spoke at the University of Colorado’s law school about mental health and wellness in the legal profession. She also shared her own story of how professional exhaustion negatively affected her health.