Tag: colorado

Top DOJ official predicts Supreme Court will declare AR-15 rifles legal everywhere in America

The Justice Department’s top civil rights lawyer believes the Trump administration’s lawsuit this week against the city of Denver’s gun ban will one day soon lead to a Supreme Court decision legalizing the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle – revered by gun owners and reviled by liberals – in every jurisdiction in America.

“We intend to make sure they do that,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in an interview set to be aired Wednesday night on the Just the News, No Noise television show.

Dhillon spoke just hours after her office filed a lawsuit against the city of Denver over its ban on “assault rifles,” arguing the ban violates residents’ Second Amendment rights. 

The ban covers AR-15-style rifles, which the complaint argues are owned by “tens of millions” of Americans, 

The complaint also describes the use of the term “assault rifle” in the Denver law’s language as a “rhetorically politically charged” term used by “anti-gun publicists.” 

In addition, the suit cites the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to possess weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes.

Keep reading

DOJ Challenges Denver’s ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban and Colorado’s Magazine Limit

The Department of Justice this week filed two Second Amendment lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, challenging that state’s ban on “large capacity” magazines and Denver’s ban on “assault weapons.” Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general in charge of the department’s Civil Rights Division, argues that both laws are unconstitutional for the same reason: They ban arms in common use for lawful purposes, which the Supreme Court has said are covered by the Second Amendment, and there is no “historical tradition” that would justify such a policy, as required by the Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

“The Constitution is not a suggestion and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said on Tuesday after the lawsuit against Denver was filed. “Denver’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles directly violates the right to bear arms. This Department of Justice will vigorously defend the liberties of law-abiding citizens nationwide.”

Denver’s ordinance was enacted in 1989, the same year that California became the first state to ban so-called assault weapons, a politically defined category that typically hinges on arbitrarily disfavored rifle features such as pistol grips, folding stocks, and flash suppressors. But Denver’s ordinance, which prohibits the sale, transfer, or possession of “assault weapons” within city limits, defines the term to include any semi-automatic pistol or center-fire rifle with a fixed or detachable magazine that holds more than 15 rounds. It therefore covers many of the most popular guns sold in the United States when they are equipped with standard-issue magazines, including AR-15-style rifles.

The complaint in United States v. Denver notes that “the term ‘assault weapon’ is not a technical term used in the firearms industry” but rather “a rhetorically charged political term developed by anti-gun publicists.” It adds that the guns banned in Denver “include ordinary semiautomatic rifles possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans.” For example, “Americans own literally tens of millions of AR-15 style rifles, the paradigmatic ‘assault weapon’ covered by the Ordinance.” In a case decided last year, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan noted that “the AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country.”

In January, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the gun industry’s trade association, reported that Americans own more than 32 million “modern sporting rifles,” the industry’s preferred term for the rifles usually covered by “assault weapon” bans. Survey data suggest that somewhere between 16 million and 25 million Americans have owned AR-15-style rifles. They commonly report using them for lawful purposes such as self-defense, hunting, and target shooting.

Such rifles are rarely used by criminals. In 2019, according to FBI data, “only 364 homicides were known to have been committed with rifles of any type, compared
to 6,368 with handguns, 1,476 with knives or other cutting instruments, 600 with personal weapons (hands, feet, etc.) and 397 with blunt objects,” Dhillon notes.

Keep reading

Judge Halts Colorado AI Law After First Amendment Challenge

A federal judge has frozen enforcement of Colorado’s first-in-the-nation AI law, the statute that would have required developers to police their own models for “algorithmic discrimination” and to inform the state of “foreseeable risks” before the rules took effect on June 30.

Judge Cyrus Y. Chung signed off on a joint request from xAI and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on April 27, putting the law on ice while state lawmakers draft a replacement.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The order was filed in xAI v. Weiser. The state agreed not to enforce SB 24-205 against xAI, or to issue rules under it, until at least 14 days after the court rules on a forthcoming preliminary injunction motion.

The June 16 scheduling conference was cancelled. The deadlines in the case are suspended.

This is a significant retreat as Colorado spent two years insisting the law was a model for the country. It was the only state AI statute named in President Trump’s AI executive order last year. Now the state is asking a court to stop the clock while its own governor’s policy group drafts a bill to repeal and replace it.

The law itself is the reason the climbdown looks the way it does. SB 24-205 told developers of “high-risk” AI systems they had to take “reasonable care” to prevent algorithmic discrimination, with one carveout that has done more work in the lawsuit than any other clause: the law exempts discrimination intended to “increase diversity or redress historical discrimination.”

The state forbids one kind of discrimination by an algorithm. It permits, and arguably requires, another. The developer is left to figure out which is which, with the attorney general’s office deciding after the fact.

xAI sued on April 9, calling the statute a First Amendment problem dressed up as consumer protection. The company’s complaint is more blunt than most filings of this kind. “SB24-205 is decidedly not an anti-discrimination law,” the company’s attorneys wrote. “It is instead an effort to embed the State’s preferred views into the very fabric of AI systems.”

The argument is that Colorado isn’t regulating outputs neutrally. It’s choosing which viewpoints an AI model is allowed to produce, then enforcing the choice through “onerous policy, assessment, and disclosure requirements,” in the words of the Justice Department’s filing.

The DOJ moved to intervene on xAI’s side, the first time the federal government has joined a constitutional challenge to a state AI regulation.

Keep reading

Judge Blocks Enforcement Of Colorado’s New DEI-Driven AI Law

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the State of Colorado from enforcing a first-of-its-kind artificial intelligence law.

Colorado is prohibited from taking enforcement actions on alleged violations of the law occurring up to 14 days after the court issues a ruling on the company xAI’s motion for a preliminary injunction, judge Cyrus Y. Chung ruled on April 27.

The Department of Justice had said the state law, which was set to go into effect on June 30, would have required AI developers and deployers to “discriminate based on race, sex, & religion—all in the name of DEI.”

DEI is an acronym for “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

Brett Shumate, an assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Civil Division, called the suspension a “huge win for the American people.”

“Colorado immediately caved and agreed not to enforce the law against ANY AI company,” Shumate wrote in a X post on May 1.

Gov. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) signed into law the Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence in May 2024 and issued a statement sharing his reservations about how it could impact Colorado.

In the statement, he urged the General Assembly to revise and delay implementing it until January 2027.

“I am concerned about the impact this law may have on an industry that is fueling critical technological advancements across our state for consumers and enterprises alike,” Polis wrote.

However, the legislation was not revised; instead, it was delayed until June 30, 2026, which prompted tech billionaire Elon Musk’s company xAI, which created Grok, to sue the state on April 9.

The unedited legislation was months away from going into effect when xAI asked the court to block the law from being enforced.

The Justice Department added its name as a plaintiff alongside xAI on April 24, marking the first time the DOJ had stepped into a case that challenged AI on a state level.

Both alleged that Colorado’s law would have caused unconstitutional “algorithmic discrimination” and asked a court to block it from being enforced.

“Laws that require AI companies to infect their products with woke DEI ideology are illegal,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who works under the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

“The Justice Department will not stand on the sidelines while states such as Colorado coerce our nation’s technological innovators into producing harmful products that advance a radical, far-left worldview at odds with the Constitution.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to Polis and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser for comment.

Keep reading

Harmeet Dhillon Announces DOJ’s Big Win Defending xAI from Colorado DEI Law

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon announced a major win for American artificial intelligence (AI) dominance after her department intervened in a lawsuit challenging a new Colorado law that prohibits “algorithmic discrimination” during an interview on Breitbart News Saturday.

Speaking with Breitbart News political editor Bradley Jaye, Dhillon revealed details on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) recent success at getting the state of Colorado to agree not to enforce SB24-205, which requires AI developers and deployers to satisfy certain disclosure, reporting, and prevention requirements when creating algorithm products designed for services like mortgage lending, student admissions, and job-candidate selection. 

The bill’s text included an explicit carveout for discriminatory algorithms designed to advance “diversity” or “redress historic discrimination,” and AI company xAI filed a lawsuit against the statute on April 9, alleging it is unconstitutional.

Marking the first time that the DOJ has intervened in a case challenging state regulations on AI, Dhillon’s team joined the case on behalf of xAI on Friday. Together, they argued that “embedding AI with state-mandated discrimination is a recipe for disaster.”

Emphasizing that the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ is meant to “protect American citizens, and even American companies, from discrimination on the basis of impermissible racial, gender, et cetera criteria,” Dhillon told Jaye that Colorado had attempted to require companies and municipalities to “look at outcomes and then racially balance and adjust their algorithms to produce outcomes that reflect the demographic population.”

“This is not required by law. In fact, it’s prohibited by federal law,” she stated. “And you know, worse, the statute actually carved out if people or companies are doing discrimination to remedy past discrimination, that’s okay. All of this is just nonsense, and it stifles innovation, and it’s illegal under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

In addition to violating the Fourteenth Amendment, Dhillon noted that xAI also has First Amendment arguments against the bill, “because, effectively, the state is compelling it to utter certain speech in furtherance of these DEI goals.”

“We’re not arguing that because the government doesn’t have that obligation, but we’re stepping in to protect American citizens and American companies,” she explained, before revealing the success of her efforts on Friday. 

“We had a great result yesterday,” Dhillon announced, recounting how Colorado “agreed to not enforce the law against xAI” within just a couple of hours of the DOJ intervening. 

“And by the evening, before we went to bed, we had Colorado agree to not enforce it against anybody until they send it back to the legislature to fix it,” she explained. “So it’s pretty much a total win for American consumers and companies, and the first instance of the United States Department of Justice stepping in on an AI case to really protect this innovation and protect Americans from discrimination by AI algorithmic manipulation.”

Highlighting why civil rights work should be “important” to people on the right side of the political aisle, Dhillon told Jaye that conservatives “have come to look at civil rights as something that’s been weaponized against Americans, but civil rights are for all Americans.”

“So what we’re doing in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is exactly that — we’re standing up for all Americans, like in this xAI case.”

Keep reading

DOJ joins Musk’s AI company in suing Colorado for new ‘DEI’ regulatory law

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced its support for Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, xAI, as it sues the state of Colorado over a new law set to go into effect in June that would regulate AI technology.

The company filed a suit against Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on Thursday to prevent the enforcement of the law, which would impose new requirements on AI programs to protect users from “algorithmic discrimination” in education, employment, healthcare, housing and financial services, and other sectors.

xAI argued that the statute “severely burdens the development and use of AI” and infringes on First Amendment free speech protections.

“Its provisions prohibit developers of AI systems from producing speech that the State of Colorado dislikes, while compelling them to conform their speech to a State-enforced orthodoxy on controversial topics of great public concern,” the lawsuit reads.

It also claims that the law would force Musk’s company to rework its AI chatbot called Grok, which can be found on the social media platform X, to “conform to a controversial, highly politicized viewpoint” instead of maintaining its objectivity.

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division announced on Friday that it partnered with the Civil Division to file a motion to intervene in the suit.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon said in a video posted to social media that the state law in question requires companies to comply with its “crazy, woke, DEI goals,” referring to the “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” policies instated widely across left-leaning and liberal organizations.

Keep reading

Corrupt Colorado Judge in Tina Peters Case Caught in a Lie While Claiming He’s Not Biased

The corrupt and biased Judge Matthew Barrett, who sentenced Tina Peters, is caught lying in his letter to the Governor, as he sticks to his erroneous and abusive sentencing of Tina Peters. 

As the days and months go by, the sentencing judge in Tina Peters’ case doubles down on his sentencing of Tina Peters.

Here is Judge Barret during his sentencing of Tina Peters, spewing hateful, biased remarks at Tina. This is difficult for good Christian people to watch, it’s so hateful.

Judge Barrett sentenced Tina Peters to prison after a hateful rage in court. This was one of the worst courtroom rants in US history. The judge prevented Tina from providing evidence that supported her actions, ignored federal statutes like the Supremacy Clause as well as the actions of Federal employees like AG Garland and FBI Head Wray, who joined a conference call regarding Tina before her arrest.

Everything about this case reminds good people of Nazi/communist courts.  It is so difficult to believe that this would happen in this great country.

Yesterday, Judge Barrett filed a response in the case to Tina Peters’ attorneys, claiming he was not biased despite what the video above shows.

Judge Barrett was seething with rage when he sentenced Tina.

Keep reading

Despite New Gun Controls, Homicides Are Spiking in Colorado’s Democratic Stronghold

When the FBI’s official crime stats come out later this year, we’re likely to learn that 2025 saw a record-setting decline in homicides nationwide, and that the overall homicide rate is the lowest it’s been since the FBI started keeping track in 1960. 

That welcome trend seems to be continuing in 2026, with criminologist Jeff Asher’s Real Time Crime Index showing another 22% decline in homicides through the first two months of the year. 

Still, there are some outliers, and one of them is Denver, Colorado. Last year Denver saw a 48% decrease in homicides, with Denver Police Chief Ron Thomas pointing to “a mix of faster police response, medical intervention, and long-term prevention strategies.” This year, though, homicides are trending in the wrong direction.

Data provided by police show that total crime, violent crime and reported gun-related offenses are down compared with both last year and recent averages. At the same time, homicides have risen compared with this point last year, with 17 reported so far in 2026, up from 10 during the same period in 2025.

Last year, Democrats in the Colorado legislature added several new restrictions to the spate of gun control laws that have been put in place since 2011, but they don’t appear to be having any kind of impact on homicides in the state’s biggest city. That’s hardly a surprise, though, given that violent crime overall climbed steadily over most of the past 15 years. 

In May, 2024 the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice released its report documenting crime rates between 2013 and 2022. Over that ten year period, violent crime rose by 61%, homicides increased by 94%, and aggravated assaults grew 88%. 

During that same ten-year period, Colorado instituted a number of gun control laws, starting with “universal” background checks and a ban on “large capacity” magazines in 2013. That was followed by a “red flag” law in 2019, and in 2021, new storage mandates for gun owners, a “lost or stolen” reporting requirement, and an end to the state’s firearm preemption law. 

Despite having almost a dozen anti-2A measures implemented over that time period, the homicide rate nearly doubled, and violent crime rates soared ever upward. 

Supposedly, overall violent crimes are down in Denver this year, even though homicides have increased by 70%, according to the CBS affiliate. Oddly, the Denver PD’s homicide dashboard reports 16, not 17 homicides, but even that is a 60% increase in murders. Non-fatal shootings have declined by 12% this  year, according to police, though in raw numbers we’re talking about five fewer incidents over the first 3 1/2 months of the year, which is hardly anything to write home about. 

The number of gun-involved homicides is also higher this year than at the same point in 2025, which is yet another sign that Colorado’s restrictive gun laws aren’t preventing violent offenders from getting their hands on a firearm. In the first four months of 2025 there were 10 homicides involving a firearm. We still have almost two weeks left in April, but Denver has already seen 12 homicides where a gun was involved. 

Of course, none of these statistics will matter to the anti-gun Democrats who keep ramming gun control laws through the legislature. They may use crime and public safety as a rationale for these laws, but the real goal is to prevent and prohibit lawful gun ownership. If violent crime falls at the same time, all the better, but that’s clearly not necessary for them to continue their crackdown on the exercise of our Second Amendment rights. 

Keep reading

Judge Orders Colorado to Stop Throwing Prisoners in Solitary for Refusing to Work

In 2019, while incarcerated at the Centennial Correctional Facility in Colorado and assigned to shifts in the kitchen, Nadia Reed refused to work for two days in one month. All incarcerated people in Colorado are required to labor, and are typically paid mere cents an hour. Her punishment for that decision was being confined to her cell alone for 23 hours a day for 30 days, unable to interact with any other incarcerated people, not even during the hour she was allowed out for exercise and to shower. She was also denied the ability to talk to her loved ones. In court testimony, she described the isolation as “very depressing,” leading her to self-harm. 

The following year, after Reed completed her assigned shift in the kitchen, she was ordered to stay longer to do additional work. She refused, for which she was handcuffed, shackled, strip searched, put in solitary confinement and once again confined to her cell for 23 hours a day, according to her testimony. As a result of the incident, Reed was reclassified from medium security to a higher level, and she says she was sexually assaulted when she was moved into that part of the prison.

Experiences like Reed’s are common in Colorado, with Bolts reporting in 2023 that incarcerated people there are routinely subjected to solitary confinement and other punishments for refusing to work. But that could soon be a thing of the past. In a groundbreaking ruling last month in a lawsuit filed against the state by Harold Mortis and Richard Lilgerose, men who were punished for refusing to work in crowded prison kitchens during the COVID-19 pandemic, a state district court judge found that Colorado is violating incarcerated people’s rights by the way it punishes them for refusing to work. 

The judge ruled that Colorado has failed to abide by a change voters made to their state constitution in 2018 that erased language allowing “slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.”

While the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution abolished slavery at the end of the Civil War, it included a carveout that sanctions it as punishment for people convicted of crimes. Many state constitutions include the same loophole, which has allowed prisons to force incarcerated people to work under threat of discipline, often for little pay; seven states don’t pay anything for most prison jobs. 

Keep reading

Another Red State, Fully Californicated

“20 years ago Colorado was a Red state and thriving,” the State Leadership Initiative posted late last week. “10 years ago liberals were writing pieces about how Colorado was the next Silicon Valley.” And now CBS News reports that “Colorado is losing businesses and jobs at an alarming rate.”

This was the hope, according to Denver-based 5280 magazine in 2020: “With another tech company setting up an office in Denver, the state could become a magnet for Silicon Valley firms and other prestigious businesses during the worst economic climate in nearly a century.”

Instead of Silicon Mountain, Colorado is quickly becoming “an economic backwater,” as SLI put it, “an omen for what happens when Red states go blue.”

It seems like only last week [It was just last week, Steve —Editor] I shared the schadenfreudelicious tale of how one TDS-suffering Delaware judge launched an exodus of big-name firms led by Elon Musk. Today, I must share similar news about my once-beloved home state of Colorado.

“The Colorado Chamber of Commerce has been sounding an alarm for years about excessive regulation,” CBS reported, and “the Chamber also said that companies are also relocating out-of-state.” According to the story, “since 2019, 98 companies have either left the state, expanded elsewhere, or scrapped plans to move here.” In the last four years, we’ve lost a total of 34 corporate headquarters, too. 

The most recent big name to leave is Palantir, the AI firm recently touted by President Donald Trump for its invaluable contributions to Operation Epic Fury. With basically zero fanfare, the company announced last week that it’s moved its HQ to Miami. 

“We are going to be hurting Colordans not just now, but the next generation, the next generation after that. And we just want to course correct,” tech entrepreneur and investor Dan Caruso wrote to Democrat Gov. Jared Polis in a letter signed by more than 200 business and civic leaders.

Polis and the Democrat-dominated statehouse made some polite noises about maybe looking into something resembling deregulation someday soonish, but Colorado requires so much more.

Let’s go back to something I wrote almost exactly one year ago, when we looked at what Colorado was like before and after 2018, the year Democrats took full control of the state government.

Keep reading