A federal judge on Thursday canceled an upcoming hearing to decide whether to block the restrictions the University of Colorado’s governing body has placed on one of its members, indicating that he would instead pivot to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

CU Regent Wanda James is suing her fellow Board of Regents members over their decision to censure her last July and remove her committee assignments. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer had scheduled a hearing for July 21 to decide whether to grant James a preliminary injunction and block the board’s sanctions while her lawsuit unfolded.

However, earlier in the week, the defendants turned to the Denver-based federal appeals court to prevent Brimmer from holding the hearing. They argued that they had invoked various forms of immunity that would bar James’ lawsuit, and that it was improper for Brimmer to proceed with a hearing without first evaluating their entitlement to immunity.

In a July 9 order, Brimmer wrote that he saw no clear precedent describing how he should handle a request to refrain from addressing a preliminary injunction motion. Still, relying on the established factors for deciding whether to pause a case, Brimmer determined it was proper to hold off until he could address the defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss.

The U.S. Supreme Court “is clear that immunity, and protecting immune defendants from the burden of litigation, is in the public interest, as immunity prevents public officials from being distracted by litigation, and avoids deterring people from public service,” he wrote. “Thus, the Court will stay this action pending the Court’s ruling on whether defendants are entitled to immunity.”

The flurry of activity in the weeks before the planned preliminary injunction hearing stemmed from the Board of Regents’ decision to censure James for violating her duties as a regent. James has represented the 1st Congressional District on the board since 2023, and she criticized a THC education campaign’s imagery as racist. The board also found that she worked to revoke funding from the university program behind the campaign. James, who is also an entrepreneur in the marijuana industry, disclaimed responsibility in her legal filings for any funding decisions.

Last summer, the board voted by 7-1 to censure James. It removed her from committee assignments and rescinded her invitations to university events that regents attend in their official capacities. James then sued the board members who voted to censure her, alleging they violated her First Amendment rights.

“The sanctions imposed have prevented me from doing my job as a regent, stripped me of the privileges of my office, and punished me,” James wrote in a statement submitted with her motion for a preliminary injunction in May. “Regent committees are the primary mechanism through which individual regents exercise the decisional authority of the office. Through committee assignments, regents review and shape University budgets, academic affairs, governance policies, and executive decisions.”

The defendants moved to halt the proceedings. They argued they were immune from being sued as legislators, and also for their quasi-judicial decision to censure James.

“Because immunity doctrines are designed to protect defendants from the burden of such proceedings, the Court should specify that it will neither order a hearing nor decide Regent James’s preliminary injunction motion until the question of immunity is resolved,” wrote their attorneys.

However, Brimmer scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for July 21, where he would hear from witnesses and listen to legal arguments. On July 8, two weeks before the hearing, the defendants announced that they were appealing his scheduling order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

Although judges’ pretrial decisions are not normally subject to immediate appeal, there is an exception for decisions denying immunity to government defendants. The CU defendants argued that, by green-lighting the preliminary injunction hearing, Brimmer had effectively denied them immunity.

“The Regents’ immunity will be destroyed if they are compelled to prepare for, attend, and testify at an evidentiary hearing from which immunity protects them, and any delay to Regent James is a necessary consequence of the fundamental importance of immunity,” they argued to the 10th Circuit.

Meanwhile, James’ lawyers asked Brimmer to designate the appeal as “frivolous.” They noted that, earlier this year, defendants from the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office similarly attempted to argue that a trial judge’s decision allowing for the exchange of certain evidence amounted to a denial of immunity.

In that case, U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews found the appeal of his decision to be frivolous, which allowed him to regain control of the case. The 10th Circuit quickly agreed that Crews’ decision had neither granted nor denied immunity, so it was not immediately appealable.

Brimmer’s scheduling order “is about case management, it does not adjudicate Defendants’ immunity defenses, and it is not a properly appealed (order),” wrote James’ lawyers.

Ultimately, Brimmer headed off the confrontation by agreeing to halt the proceedings until he could evaluate the defendants’ assertions of immunity and decide whether to dismiss the case. He wrote that James had not shown that a delay would significantly harm her, and the purpose of immunity is to protect defendants from unnecessary participation in civil lawsuits.

“The Court finds that preparing for and attending a preliminary injunction hearing is a substantial burden on defendants,” he wrote.

Brimmer gave the defendants two weeks to file their motion to dismiss.

The case is James v. Rennison et al.