Michael Karlik

@michaelkarlik

Judicial reporter at and gazette.com. Shining a light on the work of our state and federal judges. Plus, full-time bird caretaker.

620 Folgt1.314 Follower1.317 Posts

Website Bluesky

Ist das dein Profil?Übernimm es — dann gehört dir michaelkarlik.dirty.social.Profil übernehmen

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· 25d

Phoebe and I went to Golden this morning, where he was content watching people (and their dogs) splash around in Clear Creek.

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· 27d

In 2021, Colorado's Court of Appeals ordered a new murder trial because the prosecution played an out-of-context clip that misled jurors into thinking the defendant confessed. At the retrial, the prosecutor...played the same clip. The court reversed again: www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/07/17/a...

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· 27d

Whatever was actually going on with Chief Judge Dan Domenico's lengthy delays in deciding immigration habeas petitions, I've anecdotally noticed that he's far more on top of enforcing the rights of petitioners than he was before the 10th Circuit rebuffed the Trump administration.

ORDER GRANTING 17 Request for New Bond Hearing.Within one week of this Order, the respondents must provide the petitioner with a new bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1003.19, & 1236.1(d)(1) or else release the petitioner.The respondents must provide the petitioner's counsel no less than three business days' notice in advance of any bond hearing.At any bond hearing, the Government must bear the burden of proving that the petitioner is a flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence or a danger by clear and convincing evidence. See Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 40 (1st Cir. 2021); Kuzmic v. Baltasar,

Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 616 (10th Cir. 2003).The respondents must file a status report within one week of this Order stating the results of any bond hearing that was conducted or the date of the petitioner's release if no bond hearing was held.SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 07/16/2026. Text Only Entry.(agryan) (Entered: 07/16/2026)

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· 28d

Very interesting to see Senator Durbin and Senator Booker cite my reporting when asking Trump’s 10th Circuit nominee, Dan Domenico, to explain his delays in deciding civil and immigration habeas cases. I never got an answer from him on the record, but it’s good to know he doesn’t dispute anything.

3. On May 13, 2026, ColoradoPolitics.com reported on your delays in ruling on
immigration habeas petitions, causing petitioners to needlessly remain in custody. Among
your peers on the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, you took on average the
longest time to rule on such petitions.
a. Provide an explanation for this delay.

5. Public reporting mandated by the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 showed that in 2023,
you had a larger backlog of cases than all other Colorado district court judges. According
to coverage of the disclosures, “[f]or multiple reporting periods, Domenico has remained
an outlier as the only judge in Colorado to hit a triple-digit backlog—and one of the few
2
federal judges nationally whose numbers are that high.”1 In two instances, U.S. Circuit
Judge Timothy Tymkovich “stepped in to resolve motions languishing on [your] docket
for more than 1,300 days.” According to reporting, it was not until 2024 that you largely
eliminated this backlog.2
a. To what do you attribute your backlog in 2023?

1 Michael Karlik, Data show persistent delays among handful of Colorado’s federal judges, COL. POLITICS (Jan. 23,
2024), https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2024/01/23/data-show-persistent-delays-among-handful-of-colorados-
federal-judges-59edb6e4-b978-11ee-9b93-f3ec57a44aea/.
2 Michael Karlik, Trump presidency raises possibility of 10th Circuit vacancy, with eyes on Domenico, COL.
POLITICS (Nov. 12, 2024), https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2024/11/12/trump-presidency-raises-possibility-of-
10th-circuit-vacancy-with-eyes-on-domenico-bd555bb8-a07e-11ef-b4c5-b7de8f36112e/.

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· 29d

UPDATE: Judge Sweeney has removed the restriction on her recent order in Colorado's only federal death penalty prosecution. Although she apparently elaborates on this in a still-sealed order, Sweeney has ordered the defendant to undergo a competency evaluation after he asked to represent himself:

On June 30, 2026, the Court held an ex parte hearing on Defendant’s motion to
proceed pro se. ECF No. 226.
1 As further explained in its ex parte Order, ECF No. 227,
the Court concludes that it has “reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may
presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally
incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences
of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.” 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a).
As such, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant undergo a psychiatric or
psychological examination and competency hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 14

In my review of the Colorado Supreme Court's 2025-26 term, I found a significant increase in non-unanimous opinions over the prior two terms. Also, nine months later, the court still won't tell the public why Justice Melissa Hart vanished in the fall: www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/07/14/d...

Bar chart of Colorado Supreme Court justices' dissenting opinions

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 14

In Colorado's only federal death penalty prosecution, the defense is reiterating its request for the judge to recuse or to disclose what she talked about with the warden during a tour of the Supermax prison: www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/07/13/s...

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 10

Today, Judge Sweeney seemed to agree that making the document public was desirable, but she's giving the defense a week to object. Given rarity of a death penalty case, and the fact that the defense is trying to remove her for other reasons (see first post), transparency seems non-negotiable here.

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 229 MOTION for Order To Unrestrict ECF 228 as to Ishmael Petty (1). Before the Court is the United States' Motion to Unrestrict ECF 228. See ECF No. 229. In the motion, the government asks the Court to unrestrict its order at ECF No. 228, which is currently filed under level 2 restrictions, so that it may provide ECF No. 228 to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Id. at 1. The motion states that Defendant does not object, but requests "that ECF 228 only be unrestricted for the limited purpose of showing the order to BOP." Id. Because the BOP has been ordered to carry out certain of the instructions outlined in ECF No. 228, the Court GRANTS IN PART the government's motion, ECF No. 229, and ORDERS the government to provide the BOP with a copy of ECF No. 228 no later than July 13, 2026. Consistent with this order, the level 2 restriction on ECF No. 228 will otherwise remain in place for now.

However, the Court is not convinced that the level 2 restriction on ECF No. 228 should remain in-place indefinitely because, as the government correctly notes, that order does not contain any privileged or private medical information. Accordingly, no later than July 17, 2026, Defendant is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not remove all restrictions from ECF No. 228. By Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 7/10/2026. Text Only Entry (cnsja, ) (Entered: 07/10/2026)

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 10

...and she issued an order that was initially only viewable by her. But she made a version available to the prosecution and defense too. This week, the government asked that she unrestrict the file, or at least allow the Bureau of Prisons to see it, since it apparently tells them to do something.

UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO UNRESTRICT ECF 228
The United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney
Brian Dunn, respectfully moves to Unrestrict ECF 228, and states as follows:
1. The Order contained in ECF 228 is currently Level 2 Restricted, making it
viewable by only the parties and the Court.
2. ECF 228 does not reference any matter that is subject to attorney-client
privilege and does not reference private medical information of the defendant. Thus, the
United States does not believe there is cause for Level 2 restriction.
3. ECF 228 contains instructions to BOP, who is not a party to this case.
Under local rules pertaining the Level 2 restriction, the United States cannot currently
send the order to BOP for viewing.
4. The parties have conferred, and the defense does not object. However,
defense has requested that ECF 228 only be unrestricted for the limited purpose of
showing the order to BOP

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 10

Colorado's Court of Appeals clarified that an "at-risk" victim, which state law defines as someone using a mechanical breathing device, doesn't need to use the device all the time. But they do have to be using it on the day of the offense against them: www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/07/09/a...

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 10

I didn’t clock this earlier, but with the governor’s appointment of Kyle Brenton to succeed Gilbert Román on Colorado’s Court of Appeals, 10 of the 11 male judges on the court will be white. That compares with only 5 of the 11 female judges.

Governor Polis Appoints Kyle W. Brenton to the Colorado Court of Appeals and Dalia D. Labrador to the Arapahoe County Court in the 18th Judicial District

DENVER - Today, Governor Polis appointed Kyle W. Brenton to the Colorado Court of Appeals. The appointment fills the vacancy created by the retirement of the Honorable Gilbert M. Román, and is effective August 1, 2026. Governor Polis also appointed Dalia D. Labrador to the Arapahoe County Court in the 18th Judicial District. The appointment fills a vacancy created by the appointment of the Honorable A. Danielle Touart to the 18th Judicial District Court, and is effective immediately.

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 9

Colorado's Court of Appeals clarified for the first time that the crime of attempting to influence a public servant doesn't require that the government official actually have authority to carry out the expected act: www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/07/08/a...

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 8

The Colorado Supreme Court will decide whether a series of missteps led a judge to erroneously terminate a father's parental rights. Also, it will decide whether a police officer defendant in a civil lawsuit has the burden to prove his search was lawful: www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/07/07/c...

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 8

In another order, he says he'll keep doing it until the 10th Circuit says otherwise.

5 In Santillan Quiroz, the Tenth Circuit contemplated in a footnote that, on remand, the
district court should “order the Government to, within seven days of such order, either provide
[the petitioner] with a bond hearing or else release him.” 2026 WL 1876709, at *17 n.13. In this
Court’s view, it is somewhat ambiguous whether this language means that the Tenth Circuit
views release as contingent on the Government’s failure to provide a bond hearing, or a bond
hearing and release as equal, alternative remedies. In the absence of clear guidance, this
Court will continue to order immediate release in the first instance under appropriate
circumstances, unless and until the Tenth Circuit holds otherwise.

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 8

Even though the 10th Circuit's recent decision on immigration detention pointed to a bond hearing as the remedy, Senior Judge William Martínez of Colorado is still out here ordering people's immediate release because he doesn't trust the government to provide a fair bond hearing:

Second, this Court has already written of its “concern[] that the immigration
courts are not affording immigrants fair bond hearings,” as “the mounting evidence that
bond determination hearings conducted in Immigration Court under § 1226(a) have
preordained outcomes has become impossible to ignore.” Pal v. Lyons, 2026 WL
937962, at *4 (D. Colo. Apr. 7, 2025); see also Quiroz Zacarias v. Mullin, 2026 WL
1092162, at *4–*5 (D. Colo. Apr. 22, 2026) (concluding “the IJ deprived [petitioner] of
his due process rights” by issuing a bond decision that was “wholly bereft of any
analysis whatsoever”). Indeed, courts across the country have, with increasing
frequency, ceased “order[ing] even initial bond hearings in cases like this one involving
unlawful detention under § 1225(b) because Respondents’ conduct can no longer be
attributed to mere negligence or ineptitude, . . . and doing so would effectively allow the
Government to transform an unlawful detention into a lawful one through post-hoc

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 6

All of Colorado's federal judges have now held that the government is improperly detaining noncitizens without bond hearings -- as Chief Judge Dan Domenico, the lone Trump appointee, now conforms his analysis with the 10th Circuit's binding decision from last week:

The petitioner here contends that he may only be subjected to detention under Section 1226(a), and he is therefore entitled to a bond hearing
before an immigration judge, which the respondents have thus far denied him. Doc. 1 at 8-9. The respondents state that they “are not submitting a brief in opposition to the Petition,” and they “recognize that
the Court may then decide to grant the Petition . . . and award appropriate relief.” Doc. 6 at 1-2. Because the petitioner was detained in the
interior of the country, is not in expedited removal proceedings under
Section 1225(b)(1), and has no criminal history that would subject him
to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c), he may only properly be
detained under Section 1226(a), and he is entitled to a bond hearing. See Santillan Quiroz, 2026 WL 1876709, at *4 to *17. I therefore “must
grant [his habeas] petition forthwith,” and “order the Government to,
within seven days . . . either provide him with a bond hearing or else
release him.”3 Id. at *17 n.13.

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 6

NEW: The 10th Circuit revived a voter intimidation lawsuit alleging a Colorado "election integrity" group violated the Ku Klux Klan Act after the 2020 presidential race. A trial judge sided with the defendants based on a misunderstanding of circuit precedent: www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/07/06/1...

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 6

The Colorado Supreme Court is considering whether an insurance company is required to defend a manufacturer against scores of asbestos injury lawsuits after its primary insurance became insolvent: www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/07/02/c...

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 2

Judge Gordon Gallagher of Colorado orders a second bond hearing for an immigration detainee because the immigration judge didn't mention any evidence she considered when denying bond. Notably, and refreshingly, Gallagher names the IJ who violated due process: Bobbie C. Masters.

After an extension requested by Petitioner, she had a bond redetermination hearing on May
1, 2026. The Immigration Judge (IJ), Bobbie C. Masters, denied bond in a Bond Decision of the
Immigration Judge (Decision) (D. 14 at 29–32). She reasoned:
The Court finds Respondent does present a risk of flight by clear
and convincing evidence. Respondent was ordered removed on
March 18, 2026. Although that decision is currently being appealed,
it is speculative that appeal will be successful and the case will be
remanded. Her removal proceedings are closed. In addition, the
Respondent has been in the United Sates for a short period of time,
has not demonstrated any family ties or that she owns property in
the United States.
Respondent's limited options to lawfully remain in the United States
and the speculative likelihood that her appeal will be granted
substantially increase her flight risk because she has little incentive
to appear for a final order of removal. See Matter of Andrade, 19
I&N Dec. 488, 490 (BIA 1987) (noting an applicant with a greater
likelihood of obtaining relief from removal has increased motivation
to appear for future immigration hearings than one with less
potential of obtaining such relief).
Given all the foregoing, the Court therefore concludes that
Respondent's ongoing detention is justified because her release
would pose a significant risk of flight that no amount of bond or
combination of conditions could mitigate. See id. at 806-07 (“The
respondent’s limited avenue for relief, combined with his other
minimal ties to the United States, support the Immigration Judge’s
determination that the respondent poses a high flight risk and should
be held without bond pending the outcome of his removal
proceedings.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that a bond is not
warranted in this case.

As to the first prong, the record indicates that the proceeding was fundamentally unfair and
did not include factfinding based on the record before the decisionmaker. The Decision neither
mentions nor analyzes any of the evidence presented by Petitioner, leaving the distinct impression
that nothing Petitioner presented was considered (D. 14 at 29–32).3
No great discourse on the
evidence is required, but due process requires some review of the record and a resulting order
should indicate at minimum that all evidence was considered.4
In terms of the second prong,

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 1

Incredible. Less than 24 hours after the 10th Circuit rejected the government's mandatory immigration detention view, Chief Judge Dan Domenico--the only Colorado judge to side with Trump--issues identical orders in *20 cases* for bond hearings. It seems he was sitting on them until the circuit acted

ORDER.In light of Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, — F.4th —, No. 26-6019, 2026 WL 1876709 (10th Cir. June 30, 2026), within one week of this Order the respondents must either:(a) provide the petitioner with a bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1003.19, & 1236.1(d)(1) or else release the petitioner, and file a status report stating the results of any bond hearing that was conducted or the date of the petitioner's release if no bond hearing was held; or(b) show cause why this case is distinguishable from Santillan Quiroz and the application for a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 07/01/2026. Text Only Entry. (agryan) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 1

It may not matter that much because the feds in Colorado seem to be conceding these cases regularly now, but two lawyers in immigration habeas cases immediately cited the 10th Circuit's decision today:

NOTICE of Supplemental Authorities regarding Tenth Circuit's June 30, 2026 decision in Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin re: 18 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, 19 MOTION for Reconsideration re 18 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees by Petitioner Maricela Regalado-Hernandez (Jenkins, James) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

NOTICE of Supplemental Authorities by Petitioner Nelson Cahuex Bernal (Attachments: # 1 Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, No. 26-6019, slip op. (10th Cir. June 30, 2026))(Hall, Aaron) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jul 1

The government didn't respond to an immigration habeas petition for 30 days even after Judge Gina Rodriguez of Colorado ordered them to do so multiple times. The government finally filed a response that didn't argue in opposition. Judge Rodriguez immediately ordered the petitioner's release.

Respondents did not comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause and did not file
a response to the Petition. On June 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion to Enforce deadline,
requesting the Court to “enter an order directing Respondents to file a response by a date
certain and granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.” The Court
granted the Motion to Enforce on June 8, 2026, and ordered Respondents to enter their
appearance and show cause as to why the Petition should not be granted. ECF No. 8.
Again, Respondents did not comply with the Court’s order.
On June 16, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion for Order to Treat Petition as
Unopposed. ECF No. 9. Two weeks later, on June 30, 2026, Respondents finally filed a
response and simply stated “for the purposes of this specific case, Respondents are not
submitting a brief in opposition to the Petition detailing the facts and circumstances of this
case.” ECF No. 10 at 2. Given Respondents’ lack of response, the Court finds that
Petitioner is improperly detained under § 1225 and entitled to immediate release. Even
considering the Petition on the merits, the Court finds this case similar to Mendoza
Gutierrez and that the facts in this care are sufficiently similar to lead the Court to reach
the same result as it did in Mendoza Gutierrez. See Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar, No.
25-CV-2720-RMR, 2025 WL 2962908 (D. Colo. Oct. 17, 2025).

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jun 30

NEW: A second assistant U.S attorney in Colorado has filed a response to an immigration habeas petition declining to argue in opposition. This suggests there is a shift happening here, and it's favoring detained noncitizens.

ORDER granting 1 Marlon Joel Carbajal Padilla's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the "Petition"). The parties have consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge for all proceedings, including entry of a final judgment [#6]. Respondents indicate in their Response [#7] to this Court's Order to Show Cause [#4] that, though they maintain that Petitioner's detention is lawful, they are not submitting a brief in opposition to the Petition. The Court thus GRANTS the Petition for the same reasons articulated in numerous other decisions produced by this Court and this District. See Inestroza Paguada v

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jun 30

A Wyoming sheriff's office returned $938 of an immigration detainee's money -- which it was allegedly intending to hand over "in due course" -- after his lawyer complained to Senior Judge William Martínez of Colorado about the missing cash.

ORDER: Before the Court is Petitioner Alex Armando Martinez-Orellana's Motion to Enforce Judgment ("Motion"). (ECF No. 19.) Therein, he "reported that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) only returned 12 of the 950 dollars that he had in his wallet when he was apprehended." (Id. at 1.) As such, Martinez-Orellana seeks an order "requiring ICE to return all of his personal belongings, including the $938 in cash that was not returned." (Id. at 2.) Since Martinez-Orellana filed the Motion, the Government has represented that "the Laramie County Sheriff's Office has confirmed that it is in possession of Petitioner's missing money and intends to reimburse him these funds in due course." (ECF No. 37 at 2.) On June 29, 2026, Martinez-Orellana confirmed that he has been fully reimbursed. (ECF No. 46 at 1.) Given this confirmation, as well as the Court's view that this reimbursement is the sole remedy available to Petitioner pursuant to the Motion, (See ECF No. 19 at 3 (seeking only a single remedy: "an order requiring Respondents to return these funds")), it is DENIED AS MOOT. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jun 29

Meanwhile, Domenico released another decision today rejecting a noncitizen's due process claim.

Nor does it violate the petitioner’s procedural due-process rights. The
Due Process Clause does not provide applicants for admission like the
petitioner a liberty interest in being released from immigration detention as a matter of procedural due process. Sierra, 258 F.3d at 1218 &
n.3 (petitioner was “legally considered to be detained at the border and
hence as never having effected entry into this country”); accord Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at 139-40 (applicants for admission, “even those paroled elsewhere in the country for years pending removal,” are “‘treated’
for due process purposes ‘as if stopped at the border’” (quoting Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 215 (1953))). The petitioner is “entitled only to the process Congress has conferred on him by

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jun 29

Another wow: Varholak's passage seems to rebuke (in part) Chief Judge Dan Domenico of Colorado, who has minimized the right to due process for noncitizens. Domenico is currently Trump's nominee to a 10th Circuit vacancy.

While Jennings forecloses Petitioner’s statutory argument, it does not foreclose his
due process claims. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that immigration
detention is constitutionally permissible because it serves regulatory rather than punitive
purposes. See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 531 (2003). As another court in this District
has recognized, however, “courts have ‘sharply disagree[d] about the reach of the Due
Process Clause as applied to arriving [noncitizens].’” Nieto v. Ceja, No. 1:24-cv-02821-
DDD-NRN, 2025 WL 4087626, at *6 (D. Colo. June 12, 2025) (quoting Gonzalez Aguilar
v. Wolf, 448 F. Supp. 3d 1202, 1212 (D.N.M. 2020). “Some courts have held that, at some
point, due process requires a noncitizen subject to prolonged detention under Section
1225(b) be given an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge, or some
other form of individualized review of eligibility for release beyond the opportunity to
request discretionary parole under Section 1182(d)(5).” Id. (collecting cases). “But other
courts have held that due process imposes no time limit or hearing requirement while [a
noncitizen] is detained pending removal proceedings.” Id. (citations omitted).
This Court agrees with those courts that have concluded that the Due Process
Clause applies to noncitizens detained pursuant to Section 1225(b). See, e.g., Mbalivoto

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jun 29

Wow. Magistrate Judge Scott Varholak ordered a bond hearing w/this note: "If the Court is wrong, let another court declare that a noncitizen with no criminal history, no history of flight, & an adjudicated right to asylum may be detained indefinitely without running afoul of the Due Process Clause."

IV. Conclusion
As the United States prepares to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the Court notes
that the demarcation of the rights of noncitizens in this country has not always been clear.
Indeed, nearly fifty years ago the Supreme Court noted:
[D]ecisions of this Court with regard to the rights of [noncitizens] living in our
society have reflected fine, and often difficult, questions of values. As a
Nation, we exhibit extraordinary hospitality to those who come to our
country, which is not surprising for we have often been described as “a
nation of immigrants.”
Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291, 294 (1978). Fifty years later, it is difficult to reconcile the
rights acknowledged by Zadyvdas with certain statements from Knauff and
Thuraissigiam. This Court has done its best to do so. If the Court is wrong, let another
court declare that a noncitizen with no criminal history, no history of flight, and an
adjudicated right to asylum may be detained indefinitely without running afoul of the Due
Process Clause.

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jun 29

At the same time the Colorado Supreme Court killed the opportunity for voters to enact new congressional districts, it said a conservative group that spent $4 million in the 2020 election doesn’t have to disclose its donors: www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/06/29/c...

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jun 29

NEW: Congressional redistricting in 2028 is dead in Colorado, with the Supreme Court striking five proposed ballot initiatives -- favoring both D's and R's -- as violating the state constitution: www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/06/29/c...

Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik· Jun 29

BREAKING: The Colorado Supreme Court blocks *all* proposed redistricting measures from reaching the ballot -- including attempts by Democrats and Republicans to draw maps in their favor for 2026.