This year was awash in legal news nationally, with federal courts taking an outsize role in responding to executive branch actions. In Colorado, that effect was evident, but it was not the only factor at play.

Here are the top developments in 2025 from the state and federal judiciaries.

Unexpected vacancy

There was an unusual, late-breaking development on the Colorado Supreme Court. Justice Melissa Hart took a leave of absence in late October amid the court’s September-June term. Then, in mid-December, she announced she will leave the court in January, citing health issues for herself and her family. Her departure creates the first opening on the Supreme Court in five years, during a period when none of the members is particularly close to the mandatory retirement age. Hart indicated she will continue her signature work on access-to-justice issues off the bench.

New judges

The Colorado Judicial Department identified additional judges as its legislative priority this year. The original request for more than two dozen trial and appellate judges was scaled back to 15 new trial judges. Although workload studies suggested Colorado needs approximately 43 more district judges, 20 more county judges and six appellate judges, Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez said she is grateful the legislature provided what it could amid budgetary constraints.

Judicial security

Márquez has made judicial security a focus this year. In the fall, she mentioned she anticipates launching a judicial security task force proactively, noting Maryland enacted a judicial security law in 2024 only after a disgruntled litigant murdered a trial judge. Márquez detailed the harassment and invasions of privacy the Colorado Supreme Court faced after a high-profile election-related decision in 2023. She also labeled rhetoric intended to discredit the judiciary as “literally dangerous.”

Colorado at SCOTUS

Two cases originating in Colorado are currently before the U.S. Supreme Court and will be decided this term. One involves a challenge to Colorado’s ban on licensed professionals using “conversion therapy” on children, which is one of several cases implicating Colorado’s LGBTQ protections and the First Amendment rights of religious plaintiffs that the nation’s highest court has heard in recent years. The second case concerns appellate procedure in a class action lawsuit arising from Aurora’s immigration detention center.

Explosion in federal filings

Colorado’s federal trial court has surpassed 4,000 civil filings this year, which is unprecedented in recent history. At the same time, it is also unsurprising: Anyone looking at the docket will see an explosion in cases from people challenging their immigration detention, as well as other civil lawsuits implicating the federal government’s actions in a range of policy areas. Colorado’s federal judges have generally sided with the detainees bringing such cases, on grounds that the government is unlawfully taking them into custody or denying them bond hearings.

Implicit bias in jury selection is finally addressed

The Colorado Supreme Court finally adopted a rule originally aimed at implicit racial bias in criminal jury selection, nearly 2.5 years after it held a hearing on the proposal. Although purposeful racial discrimination is unconstitutional, the justices grappled with how to combat dismissals of jurors of color for reasons that, while not explicitly racial, nonetheless correlate with race. Ultimately, the court retreated from the initial language, to the dismay of defense lawyers and some trial judges. The guidance takes effect in January and clarifies that “both conscious bias and unconscious or implicit bias may contribute or lead to purposeful discrimination.” Now, it is up to lawyers and judges to explore the limits of the new rule.

Artificial intelligence

There is no shortage of stories about lawyers, and even judges, using artificial intelligence tools to draft legal filings and neglecting to catch inaccurate or phony case references. There were multiple instances of that this year: A federal judge recommended sanctions against a pair of self-represented plaintiffs whose filings contained faulty citations. A judge sanctioned lawyers for MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell for AI errors. The Colorado Supreme Court recently held a rules hearing on lawyers’ duty to review the work of AI tools. The chief justice also created an advisory committee to further explore AI use, so look for the recommendations next year.

Rule of law

While sitting judges are restricted in what they can discuss, there have been some concerns from the bench about the integrity of the legal system. One state appellate judge observed in October that there seems to be “a large-scale attack on the rule of law” happening. A retired Supreme Court justice and trial judge joined a brief arguing for dismissal of federal criminal charges against a Milwaukee judge for her alleged response to immigration authorities in her courthouse. On the other hand, a federal appeals judge said he did “not think we’re in a judicial crisis,” but rather in a period of more intense polarization generally.