Colorado legislature to debate "No Kings Act"
With three weeks left in the legislative session, Democrats in the Colorado Legislature have introduced a bill titled the "No Kings Act." It has sparked a firestorm of controversy.
While the "No Kings" rallies happening across the country are about one specific government official -- President Trump -- the "No Kings Act" at the Colorado State Capitol encompasses every government official.
Under the bill, anyone who believes their constitutional rights have been violated could file a civil suit against any public official in state court.
"All over the state and the country we are seeing gross abuses of people's constitutional rights and we don't have sufficient remedies in any law -- state law or federal law," said state Sen. Mike Weissman, who's co-sponsoring the bill with state Sen. Julie Gonzales.
They say people can already sue state and local officials in federal court. Their measure is aimed primarily at federal officials who, they say, aren't liable in any court.
"At the end of day, you ought to be able to seek a remedy in court when your constitutional rights are trampled upon," said Gonzales. "A right without a remedy is not a right."
Jessica Dotter with the Colorado District Attorneys Council says federal officials are the only ones who won't be impacted by the bill.
"The problem is, federal employees will have protections. And we know that there is a zero-to-none chance that you will actually be able to successfully sue a federal agent if this bill were to pass," she said.
Dotter says it's state and local officials who would pay the price. While federal courts have provided immunity for them, state courts, she says, aren't bound by federal case law.
"And the state and taxpayers will end up paying millions of dollars," she said.
She says the bill will trigger a flood of civil litigation against everyone from the governor and attorney general to teachers, public health officials, and even a librarian enforcing a book ban.
State and local governments, she says, would be forced to mount a defense regardless of an employee's liability.
"Unfortunately with a bill like this, the chaos that it causes to government functioning requires that settlements be done regardless of whether or not there's blame to be had."
Gonzalez and Weissman insist the bill doesn't create any more liability for state and local officials than already exists under federal law and they note that their bill specifically allows defendants to assert government immunity in state court just as they do in federal court.
They say the only reason they included state and local officials is because, under the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, they couldn't legally target federal employees only.