21 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Qwest Services Corp. v. Bloodgreen2 sentences2025Corp. v. Blood, 252 P.3d 1071, 1085 (Colo. 2011)). 2017To prevail on an as-applied constitutional challenge, the challenging party must “establish that the statute, is unconstitutional ‘under the circumstances in which the plaintiff has acted or proposes to act.’ ” Qwest Servs, Corp, v. Blood, 252 P.3d 1071, 1085 (Colo.2011) (quoting Developmental -Pathways v. Ritter, 178,P.3d 624,..534 (Colo.2008)). | 6 | 7 |
Developmental Pathways v. Rittergreen2 sentences2025Developmental Pathways v. Ritter , 178 P.3d 524, 533-34 (Colo. 2008). 2018A successful facial challenge must show that “the law is unconstitutional in all its applications.” Dallman v. Ritter, 225 P.3d 610, 625 (Colo. 2010) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)). ¶9 An as-applied constitutional challenge succeeds if the statute is unconstitutional “under the circumstances in which the [plaintiff] has acted or proposes to act.” Developmental Pathways v. Ritter, 178 P.3d 524, 534 (Colo. 2008) (quoting Sanger v. Dennis, 148 P.3d 404, 410 (Colo. App. 2006)). | 5 | 5 |
People v. Oglethorpegreen2 sentences2020See Maloy, ¶ 35, ___ P.3d at ___ (ruling in favor of the defendant’s as-applied equal protection challenge to a section of SOLSA for the first time in a reported case); see also Sabell, ¶ 45, 452 P.3d at 100 (rejecting an as-applied constitutional challenge to SOLSA because the division was not persuaded to depart from the numerous decisions of previous divisions of this court affirming the constitutionality of SOLSA); People v. Oglethorpe, 87 P.3d 129, 133 (Colo. App. 2003) (holding that SOLSA was not unconstitutional as applied to the defendant); cf. People in Interest of T.B., 2019 COA 89, 2020See Maloy, ¶ 35, ___ P.3d at ___ (ruling in favor of the defendant’s as-applied equal protection challenge to a section of SOLSA for the first time in a reported case); see also Sabell, ¶ 45, 452 P.3d at 100 (rejecting an as-applied constitutional challenge to SOLSA because the division was not persuaded to depart from the numerous decisions of previous divisions of this court affirming the constitutionality of SOLSA); People v. Oglethorpe, 87 P.3d 129, 133 (Colo. App. 2003) (holding that SOLSA was not unconstitutional as applied to the defendant); cf. People in Interest of T.B., 2019 COA 89, | 2 | 2 |
People v. Maxwellgreen2 sentences2026People v. Maxwell, 2017 CO 46, ¶ 7 . 2025A. Standard of Review ¶ 46 To prevail on an as-applied constitutional challenge, the defendant must show that the “statute is unconstitutional ‘under the circumstances in which the [defendant] has acted.’” People v. Maxwell, 2017 CO 46, ¶ 7 (quoting Qwest Servs. | 1 | 2 |
Counterman v. Coloradogreen2 sentences2025Applying the factors set forth in People in Interest of R.D., 2020 CO 44 , abrogated by Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), the trial court denied the defendant’s challenge and found that the speech in his emails constituted “true threats.” After the defendant’s trial, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Counterman, which addressed a different subsection of Colorado’s stalking statute, section 18-3-602(1)(c); reversed People v. Counterman, 2021 COA 97 ; and abrogated R.D. 2025Must he do so, under the First Amendment, for a true-threats prosecution to succeed?”); id. at 82 (the defendant’s stalking conviction violated 6 the First Amendment because, in its prosecution, the State “did not have to show any awareness on his part that [his] statements could be understood” as threats); see also Hernandez, ¶ 14 (“[I]n as- applied constitutional challenges, the issue is whether certain actions are unconstitutional applications of the law, not whether a statute should be ‘declared unconstitutional’ in all of its possible applications.”). ¶ 16 Thus, Counterman involved an as- | 1 | 2 |
The People of the State of Colorado v. Robert Keith Ray.green1 sentence2026The key considerations for such a challenge are “the culpability of the offenders at issue in light of their crimes and characteristics, along with the severity of the punishment in question.” People v. Ray, 2025 CO 42M, ¶ 185 (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 67 ). ¶ 48 Although the complaint alleged that two of the homeless plaintiffs have been ticketed and summoned, none of the homeless plaintiffs were purportedly sentenced or fined. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fordgreen1 sentence2025“Outside the First Amendment context, a facial challenge alleges that there are 4 no circumstances to which a statute can be applied constitutionally.” People v. Ford, 232 P.3d 260, 263 (Colo. App. 2009). ¶ 11 “By contrast, an as-applied constitutional challenge contends that a provision is unconstitutional under the specific circumstances in which a party has acted or is planning to act.” People v. Hernandez, 2025 CO 13 , ¶ 14. ¶ 12 When a defendant enters a guilty plea, they waive important constitutional rights. | 1 | 1 |
Sanger v. Dennisgreen2 sentences2018A successful facial challenge must show that “the law is unconstitutional in all its applications.” Dallman v. Ritter, 225 P.3d 610, 625 (Colo. 2010) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)). ¶9 An as-applied constitutional challenge succeeds if the statute is unconstitutional “under the circumstances in which the [plaintiff] has acted or proposes to act.” Developmental Pathways v. Ritter, 178 P.3d 524, 534 (Colo. 2008) (quoting Sanger v. Dennis, 148 P.3d 404, 410 (Colo. App. 2006)). 2018Unlike a successful challenge to facial validity, the result of “holding a statute unconstitutional as applied 3 is to prevent its future application in a similar context, but not to render it utterly inoperative.” Id. (quoting Sanger, 148 P.3d at 410 ). | 1 | 1 |
Dallman v. Rittergreen1 sentence2018A successful facial challenge must show that “the law is unconstitutional in all its applications.” Dallman v. Ritter, 225 P.3d 610, 625 (Colo. 2010) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)). ¶9 An as-applied constitutional challenge succeeds if the statute is unconstitutional “under the circumstances in which the [plaintiff] has acted or proposes to act.” Developmental Pathways v. Ritter, 178 P.3d 524, 534 (Colo. 2008) (quoting Sanger v. Dennis, 148 P.3d 404, 410 (Colo. App. 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Salernogreen1 sentence2018A successful facial challenge must show that “the law is unconstitutional in all its applications.” Dallman v. Ritter, 225 P.3d 610, 625 (Colo. 2010) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)). ¶9 An as-applied constitutional challenge succeeds if the statute is unconstitutional “under the circumstances in which the [plaintiff] has acted or proposes to act.” Developmental Pathways v. Ritter, 178 P.3d 524, 534 (Colo. 2008) (quoting Sanger v. Dennis, 148 P.3d 404, 410 (Colo. App. 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
Townsend v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2016Townsend v. People , 252 P.3d 1108 , 1113 (Colo. 2011) ("On appeal, he argued instead that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him .... | 1 | 1 |
People v. Baergreen1 sentence2008People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225, 1233 (Colo.1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
The People of the State of Colorado v. Ashley Hernandez
green
2 sentences2026People v. Hernandez , 2025 CO 13, ¶ 14 , 566 P.3d 995, 998 . 2025“Outside the First Amendment context, a facial challenge alleges that there are 4 no circumstances to which a statute can be applied constitutionally.” People v. Ford, 232 P.3d 260, 263 (Colo. App. 2009). ¶ 11 “By contrast, an as-applied constitutional challenge contends that a provision is unconstitutional under the specific circumstances in which a party has acted or is planning to act.” People v. Hernandez, 2025 CO 13 , ¶ 14. ¶ 12 When a defendant enters a guilty plea, they waive important constitutional rights. | 2 | 2025–2026 |
in Interest of T.B
green
2 sentences2020See Maloy, ¶ 35, ___ P.3d at ___ (ruling in favor of the defendant’s as-applied equal protection challenge to a section of SOLSA for the first time in a reported case); see also Sabell, ¶ 45, 452 P.3d at 100 (rejecting an as-applied constitutional challenge to SOLSA because the division was not persuaded to depart from the numerous decisions of previous divisions of this court affirming the constitutionality of SOLSA); People v. Oglethorpe, 87 P.3d 129, 133 (Colo. App. 2003) (holding that SOLSA was not unconstitutional as applied to the defendant); cf. People in Interest of T.B., 2019 COA 89, 2020See Maloy, ¶ 35, ___ P.3d at ___ (ruling in favor of the defendant’s as-applied equal protection challenge to a section of SOLSA for the first time in a reported case); see also Sabell, ¶ 45, 452 P.3d at 100 (rejecting an as-applied constitutional challenge to SOLSA because the division was not persuaded to depart from the numerous decisions of previous divisions of this court affirming the constitutionality of SOLSA); People v. Oglethorpe, 87 P.3d 129, 133 (Colo. App. 2003) (holding that SOLSA was not unconstitutional as applied to the defendant); cf. People in Interest of T.B., 2019 COA 89, | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Graham v. Florida
green
1 sentence2026The key considerations for such a challenge are “the culpability of the offenders at issue in light of their crimes and characteristics, along with the severity of the punishment in question.” People v. Ray, 2025 CO 42M, ¶ 185 (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 67 ). ¶ 48 Although the complaint alleged that two of the homeless plaintiffs have been ticketed and summoned, none of the homeless plaintiffs were purportedly sentenced or fined. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Griego
green
1 sentence2026In addition, "the distinction between the two offenses must be 'sufficiently pragmatic' to 'permit an intelligent and uniform application of the law.'" Id. (quoting Marcy , 628 P.2d at 78 ). ¶25 An as-applied constitutional challenge like that at issue asserts that a provision is unconstitutional under the circumstances in which a party has acted or is planning to act. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Marcy
red
1 sentence2026In addition, "the distinction between the two offenses must be 'sufficiently pragmatic' to 'permit an intelligent and uniform application of the law.'" Id. (quoting Marcy , 628 P.2d at 78 ). ¶25 An as-applied constitutional challenge like that at issue asserts that a provision is unconstitutional under the circumstances in which a party has acted or is planning to act. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Peo v. Houser
green
1 sentence2025See People v. Counterman, 2021 COA 97 , ¶¶ 1-2, 15, 23, 34, 53, 59 (the defendant’s claim was an “as-applied” constitutional challenge), vacated, 600 U.S. at 83 ; State v. Labbe, 2024 ME 15, ¶ 48 , 314 A.3d 162 , 178 (rejecting the defendant’s facial challenge to Maine’s stalking statute because “Counterman did not hold that . . . the Colorado stalking statute was facially unconstitutional; it was an as-applied challenge based on the specific facts in, and posture of, that case”); cf. Hernandez, ¶¶ 1, 3, 6 (concluding that the supreme court lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Delano Marco Medina
green
1 sentence2025Medina v. People, 2023 CO 46, ¶ 17 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State of Maine v. Jacob R. Labbe Sr.
green
1 sentence2025See People v. Counterman, 2021 COA 97 , ¶¶ 1-2, 15, 23, 34, 53, 59 (the defendant’s claim was an “as-applied” constitutional challenge), vacated, 600 U.S. at 83 ; State v. Labbe, 2024 ME 15, ¶ 48 , 314 A.3d 162 , 178 (rejecting the defendant’s facial challenge to Maine’s stalking statute because “Counterman did not hold that . . . the Colorado stalking statute was facially unconstitutional; it was an as-applied challenge based on the specific facts in, and posture of, that case”); cf. Hernandez, ¶¶ 1, 3, 6 (concluding that the supreme court lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order | 1 | 2025–2025 |
in Interest of R.D
green
2 sentences2025Applying the factors set forth in People in Interest of R.D., 2020 CO 44 , abrogated by Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), the trial court denied the defendant’s challenge and found that the speech in his emails constituted “true threats.” After the defendant’s trial, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Counterman, which addressed a different subsection of Colorado’s stalking statute, section 18-3-602(1)(c); reversed People v. Counterman, 2021 COA 97 ; and abrogated R.D. 2025Applying the factors set forth in People in Interest of R.D., 2020 CO 44 , abrogated by Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), the trial court denied Casper’s challenge and found that the speech in his emails constituted “true threats.” ¶2 After Casper’s trial, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Counterman, which addressed a different subsection of Colorado’s stalking statute, section 18-3-602(1)(c); reversed People v. Counterman, 2021 COA 97 ; and abrogated R.D. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
1405 Hotel, LLC v. Colorado Economic Development Commission
neutral
1 sentence2016In 1405 Hotel I, ¶ 56, 370 P.3d at 319 , the division stated that the Hotels' constitutional challenge was a contingent claim based on the Denver District Court's conclusion that the fnitial approval of the Gaylord Project constituted final agency action and, therefore, the Hotels' action was untimely. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Cevallos-Acosta
green
1 sentence2012Additionally, the juror in Cevallos-Acosta affirmatively stated that he could be impartial despite the defendant's race-thereby disproving the existence of actual bias under section 16-10-103(1)(j). 140 P.3d at 122 . ¶ 99 Accordingly, these cases do not support the majority's conclusion that the failure to ask questions about race during voir dire prevents a defendant from making an as-applied constitutional challenge to CRE 606(b), based on previously unknown bias and the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. ¶ 100 Third, Pena-Rodriguez did not waive his right to an impartial jury knowi | 1 | 2012–2012 |
American Federation Of Government Employees, Afl-Cio, Local 2391, (Afge) v. Lynn A. Martin
green
2 sentences1993The court also emphasized that its holding did not preclude an as-applied constitutional challenge to the program, id., in the event, for example, that testing was ordered without rea sonable suspicion based on objectively reliable evidence, see id. 8 The results in Yeutter and Local 2391 , to the extent that they are relevant to the issue before us, accord with both precedent and reason. 1993The court also emphasized that its holding did not preclude an as-applied constitutional challenge to the program, id., in the event, for example, that testing was ordered without rea sonable suspicion based on objectively reliable evidence, see id. 8 The results in Yeutter and Local 2391 , to the extent that they are relevant to the issue before us, accord with both precedent and reason. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.