Colorado Court of Appeals – Week of October 16

Oct 24, 2023

By: Alan Schindler, Esq. and Anna Goldman, Esq.

Colorado Supreme Court abandons political subdivision doctrine.

Weld Cnty. Colorado Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Ryan, 2023 CO 54 54

Colorado Supreme Court, en banc; Opinion by Justice Hart, joined by Chief Justice Boatright, Justice Marquez, Justice Hood, Justice Gabriel, Justice Samour, and Justice Berkenkotter

Judgment: Affirmed

Procedure: Granted certiorari after judgment by Court of Appeals

Colo. State Bd. Of Educ. V. Adams Cnty. Sch. Dist. 14, 2023 CO 52

Colorado Supreme Court, en banc; Opinion by Justice Marquez, joined by Chief Justice Boatright, Justice Hood, Justice Gabriel, Justice Hart, Justice Samour, and Justice Berkenkotter

Judgment: Affirmed

Procedure: Granted certiorari after judgment from District Court, City and County of Denver, Judge Shelley I. Gilman

Factual Background and Court of Appeals Judgments:

The Supreme Court decided two cases that both concerned standing: Weld Cnty. Colorado Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Ryan, 2023 CO 54 and Colo. State Bd. Of Educ. V. Adams Cnty. Sch. Dist. 14, 2023 CO 52. More specifically, both cases provided the Court an opportunity to re-examine the judicially created political subdivision doctrine and its articulation in Martin v. District Court, 550 P.2d 86 (Colo. 1976) (the “rule of Martin”).

In Weld Cnty., the Weld County Board of County Commissioners sought judicial review of rules adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. A division of the Court of Appeals applied the political subdivision doctrine and found that Weld County did not have standing to bring its claims.

Similarly, in Colo. State Bd., Adams County School District 14 challenged the State Board’s decision to remove its accreditation and order its reorganization. Applying the political subdivision doctrine, the district court found that Adams County did not have standing to pursue its claims. The Supreme Court granted certiorari pursuant to C.A.R. 50 because this case involves a matter of sufficient public importance to justify deviation from normal appellate procedures.

The Supreme Court upheld both of these judgments, but on different grounds.

Issue on appeal: Whether the Court should review and clarify the political subdivision doctrine.

In these two cases, the Supreme Court abandoned the political subdivision doctrine or “rule of Martin.” In abandoning the political subdivision doctrine, the Court held that state agencies, political subdivisions, and their officials no longer need to comply with an additional, specialized test to establish standing to bring suit. Following, the two-part test for standing set forth in Wimberly v. Ettenberg, 570 P.2d 535, 539 (Colo. 1977) is the only test for determining whether a party has standing in Colorado.

The Court reasoned that the political subdivision doctrine generated “substantial confusion as to its scope and applicability.” Further, the doctrine is unnecessary as it is duplicative of Wimberly. The Wimberly standing test requires a plaintiff to show (1) “injury in fact” (2) “to a legally protected interest as contemplated by statutory or constitutional provisions.” 570 P.2d at 539. The political subdivision doctrine was another two-part test that asks (1) whether the government entity seeking judicial review is subordinate to the entity whose decision is challenged, and (2) if so, whether any statutory or constitutional provision confers a right on the subordinate entity to seek such judicial review. Martin, 550 P.2d at 866.

The Court thus held that the political subdivision doctrine was unnecessarily redundant in light of the Wimberly standing test. Now, subordinate state agencies, political subdivisions, and officials challenging a government entity’s decision do not need to prove any additional standing requirements beyond the Wimberly test.

Holdings:

In Weld Cnty., the Court held that Weld County had a legally protected interest in its claims because the Air Act specifically incorporated the APA, including the provision that permits parties to challenge any “final order or determination by the division or the commission.” § 25-7-120(1), C.R.S. (2023). Therefore, Weld County satisfied the second Wimberly prong for standing.

Weld County alleged three types of injuries: to its tax base, its procedural rights, and its land use authority. The Court found that none of these constituted injury in fact. Weld County failed to prove the first Wimberly prong and thus lacked standing to pursue its claims.

In Colo. State Bd., Adams County alleged four injuries: (1) that the State Board violated the local control provision of the Colorado Constitution; (2) that the State Board violated the Education Accountability Act; (3) that the State Board violated its statutory due process rights under the APA and its constitutional due process rights; and (4) that the State Board violated the equal protection rights of the economically disadvantaged, non-white, non-English speaking students in Adams 14. The Court did not decide whether Adams County had any legally protected interests in these claims because Adams County failed to prove the first Wimberly prong, that they suffered an injury in fact.

About Greenspoon Marder

Greenspoon Marder LLP is a full-service law firm with over 225 attorneys and more than 20 office locations across the United States. With operations from Miami to New York and from Denver to Los Angeles, our firm attracts some of the nation’s top talent in key markets and innovation hubs. Our core practice areas include Real Estate, Litigation, and Transactional Services, complemented by the capabilities of a full-service firm. Greenspoon Marder has maintained a spot on The American Lawyer’s Am Law 200 as one of the top law firms in the U.S. since 2015, and our goal is to provide exceptional client service by developing a thorough understanding of each client’s business needs and objectives in order to provide strategic, cost-effective solutions.

MEDIA CONTACT

Natalie Villanueva, Director of Marketing
954.333.4308 | [email protected]

This Greenspoon Marder LLP Client Alert is issued for informational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as general legal advice nor a solicitation of any type. Please contact the author(s) or your Greenspoon Marder LLP contact if you have any questions regarding the currency of this information. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision. Before you decide, ask for written information about the lawyer’s legal qualifications and experience.

Previous Next

News

Colorado Court of Appeals – Week of October 16

Share

News & Events

News & Events