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

The state Supreme Court is holding oral arguments this week, plus Colorado’s judicial discipline commission released its annual report.

Colorado Supreme Court news

•  The Supreme Court will hear arguments in three cases on Tuesday:

J.B. v. MKBS, LLC et al.: If one defendant has failed to respond or participate in a civil lawsuit and becomes liable by default, can he testify at trial for his co-defendant? And can the jury’s verdict result in the default judgment being overturned?

People v. Jebe: If a trial judge dismisses criminal charges and the prosecution asks for reconsideration, does that extend the deadline to appeal to the Court of Appeals?

Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC: What does a debt collector have to include with its court complaint against a debtor in order to validly sue under Colorado law?

•  Notably, this is the first set of arguments featuring Justice Susan Blanco, following her swearing-in last week. For those watching on the livestream, expect the seating chart to be a little different as the more junior members rearrange themselves on the bench.

•  The justices decided, by 5-1, that a violation of a restraining order can always serve as an underlying offense for a burglary conviction.

•  The Supreme Court has asked Children’s Hospital Colorado to explain why it should not overturn a Denver judge’s order and direct the hospital to continue providing care to transgender patients.

Heard on appeal

•  The state’s Court of Appeals reversed a defendant’s vehicular homicide conviction because of incomplete jury instructions.

Judicial discipline

•  The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline released its annual report for 2025. Readers already know that three trial judges underwent public disciplinary proceedings last year, but the report indicated that an additional three trial judges were privately disciplined for losing their composure in their courtrooms.

•  The commission received 473 complaints against judges last year, which is far higher than the number a decade ago. Like always, most of the complaints were dismissed because they disputed judges’ rulings. But the commission attributed the increase to its enhanced visibility and to the ability to file online complaints more easily.

In federal news

•  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit determined an incarcerated plaintiff could continue to sue the state for alleged constitutional violations, even though he is now in a different prison. Notably and confusingly, that was the opposite of what the 10th Circuit said two years ago about a different prisoner who was transferred in the middle of his case.

•  Two plaintiffs who were arrested for not showing up to a trial that had been postponed can’t sue the prosecutor who allegedly initiated their arrest, a federal judge ruled.

•  A federal judge dismissed a developer’s constitutional challenge to a pair of Denver affordable housing ordinances.

•  A judge in Washington, D.C. blocked a recent policy that affected the ability of U.S. Reps. Jason Crow, Joe Neguse, and others to conduct oversight visits at immigration detention facilities.

Immigration detention update

•  Readers are likely aware that Colorado’s federal district court is facing a flood of “habeas corpus” petitions from those in immigration detention. The most common allegation is that the government is improperly denying bond hearings to people who are eligible by law. Colorado’s judges, like the vast majority of their peers around the country, have agreed with that argument.

•  However, there are interesting developments occurring across these cases, which are flowing in at a rate of approximately eight per weekday to Colorado’s U.S. District Court.

•  Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson recently blocked the government from invoking its “automatic stay” regulation in one man’s case, which would’ve had the effect of keeping him incarcerated even if an immigration judge found him suitable for release from custody:

•  Also, two judges have recently acknowledged that courts elsewhere have found U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated judicial orders. But Senior Judge William J. Martínez indicated he hasn’t seen any violations here. Martínez added that he will respond accordingly if a violation happens:

•  Judge Philip A. Brimmer also noted that ICE’s violations elsewhere didn’t mean they would violate his order in the case at hand:

Vacancies and appointments

•  Applications are due by March 30 to succeed retiring District Court Judge Ben L. Leutwyler in the 23rd Judicial District (Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln counties).

•  Applications are due that same day to succeed retiring District Court Judge David Prince in the Fourth Judicial District (El Paso and Teller counties).