Federal court issues injunction on Colorado gas stove labels law
A federal judge in Denver has issued an injunction blocking enforcement of a newly enacted state law that would have required retailers to place labels on gas-fueled stoves with warnings about their potential effects on air quality.
The law, House Bill 25-1161, was scheduled to take effect on Aug. 6 of this year. The day before, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing the law requires a “non-consensus, scientifically controversial, and factually misleading government-mandated message” about gas stoves.
The group additionally argued that the law violated the First Amendment.
Attorney General Phil Weiser, who represents the state in the litigation, argued that the law is subject to deferential review because it regulates commercial speech and is “purely factual and uncontroversial.”
Weiser argued the First Amendment does not apply to the labeling requirement because it qualifies as government speech.
Judge S. Kato Crews ultimately ruled in favor of the appliance manufacturers, finding “strict scrutiny test” applies to the law. Strict scrutiny is the highest form of judicial review used by American courts to determine a law’s constitutionality. Under this test, a government must prove that a law is narrowly tailored to “further a compelling government interest” through the “least restrictive means” available.
Crews noted that statements made by two of the bill’s sponsors – Sens. Cathy Kipp, D-Fort Collins, and Katie Wallace, D-Longmont – that gas stoves contribute to air pollution are “not alone enough to prove that HB25-1161 was adopted to combat climate change.”
He also contended that the law is not narrowly tailored nor is it the “least restrictive means of informing consumers about the alleged health impacts of gas-fueled stoves.”
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers is seeking a permanent injunction, as well as an official declaration that the law is unconstitutional.
A spokesperson for Weiser’s Office declined to comment.

