Colorado Law

Five Things HB25-1312 Does:

• Streamlines gender‐marker changes on birth certificates, allowing individuals to amend their sex designation up to three times—without court orders or medical documentation—thereby removing longstanding barriers to updating foundational identity documents.

• Elevates deadnaming and misgendering to “coercive control” in child‐custody proceedings, mandating that courts consider instances of deadnaming, misgendering, or threats to out a child’s gender‐affirming care when determining parenting time and the best interests of the child.

• Blocks out‐of‐state child‐removal statutes, prohibiting Colorado courts from enforcing another jurisdiction’s law that would remove a child from a parent for permitting gender‐affirming medical treatment, thus insulating Colorado families from external child‐welfare actions.

• Expands anti‐discrimination law (Colorado Anti-Discremation Act – CADA) to define deadnaming and misgendering as prohibited discriminatory acts in places of public accommodation and broadens sex‐designation amendment rights on driver’s licenses (allowing up to three changes without a court order) .

• Imposes inclusive “chosen‐name” and gender‐neutral policies across public schools and governmental forms by:

• Requiring schools to adopt chosen‐name policies that cover all reasons a student might use a name different from their legal name and to allow any variation of dress without gender‐based rules.

• Mandating public‐entity forms include both legal and chosen‐name fields and then use the chosen name thereafter.

Ideas on how regular Coloradans can push back on HB25-1312

• Support or initiate a home-rule charter amendment. If you live in a home-rule municipality or county (Fort Collins, Loveland, Greeley, Windsor, Johnstown, Timnath, and Severance are all Home Rule Municipalities. Weld County is one of just two home rule counties in Colorado – the other is Pitkin County), you can petition to have your charter explicitly prohibit local enforcement of chosen-name or gender-neutral dress policies in schools and public accommodations. This creates a direct, locally binding check on state law.

• Back strategic lawsuits to challenge overreach. Pool resources with organizations—such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, Colorado Family Action, or your county’s District Attorney—that are mounting constitutional challenges to overbroad “coercive control” language in custody hearings or to expanded definitions under CADA. Even if the statute survives, narrowing court interpretations can blunt its worst effects.

• Pressure your elected officials and school boards. Write, call, or meet with your state legislators, county commissioners, and local school-district boards to demand that they refuse to implement any non-statutory “guidance” or administrative rules that go beyond the text of HB 25-1312. Public testimony at hearings and well-organized letter-writing campaigns can stall or limit bureaucratic overreach.

• Educate and mobilize your community. Host neighborhood forums, church small groups, or PTA meetings to explain the real-world impacts of dead-naming mandates and “chosen-name” dress codes. Equip friends and neighbors with simple fact sheets and sample letters so they know exactly whom to contact and what to say. 

• Use local ordinances to protect parental rights. Work with your county or city to pass local ordinances affirming that no government or school employee may violate parents’ rights to be informed before any gender-identity discussions or treatments are offered to their children. While state law preempts conflicting ordinances, a clear local statement raises the political cost of enforcement.

• Vote with this issue in mind. In every election—municipal, legislative, and statewide—prioritize candidates who have pledged to repeal HB 25-1312 or to defend parental and religious liberty against expansive interpretations of “anti-discrimination.” Building a legislature that shares your values is the surest long-term defense.

These steps—legal, political, and grassroots—give regular Coloradans multiple ways to curb HB 25-1312 and to restore parental and religious freedom.

Summary of the Camp IdRaHaJe Complaint:

• Parties Involved:

Plaintiff: Camp IdRaHaJe Association, a nonprofit operating a Christian summer camp in Colorado since 1959, emphasizing outdoor activities and Biblical teachings.
Defendants: Lisa Roy (Executive Director) and other officials of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, responsible for regulating licensed camps.

• Background:

• The camp has historically separated campers by biological sex for sleeping arrangements, restrooms, and other private facilities, aligning with its Christian beliefs and safety considerations.
• In 2023, the Colorado Department of Early Childhood updated its licensing rules to include a nondiscrimination policy requiring camps to allow campers to access facilities and participate in activities based on their gender identity, not biological sex.
• The camp argues this policy violates its constitutional rights and creates safety and privacy concerns for campers and staff.

• Claims: The complaint alleges that the state’s policy infringes on several constitutional protections:

• First Amendment – Free Exercise of Religion: The policy forces the camp to violate its sincerely held religious beliefs about biological sex and gender, compelling it to act against its Christian mission.
• First Amendment – Freedom of Speech: The policy compels the camp to communicate messages (e.g., through facility assignments) that contradict its beliefs and restricts its ability to express its religious views.
• First Amendment – Freedom of Association: The policy interferes with the camp’s right to associate with campers and staff who share its religious values.
• Fourteenth Amendment – Equal Protection: The camp claims the policy unfairly targets religious organizations, as secular camps may not face similar burdens.
• Fourteenth Amendment – Due Process: The policy is vague and fails to provide clear guidance, risking arbitrary enforcement.

Key Issues: 

• Privacy and Safety: The camp argues that allowing biological males to use female facilities (and vice versa) undermines camper privacy and increases safety risks, particularly for minors.
• Religious Liberty: The camp asserts that the policy forces it to choose between complying with state rules (violating its faith) or risking its license, fines, or closure.
• Practical Impact: Compliance would require significant changes to the camp’s operations, including facility use, staff training, and camper interactions, undermining its religious mission and community trust.

Relief Sought: The camp requests the court to: 

• Issue a declaratory judgment that the policy violates the camp’s constitutional rights.
• Grant a permanent injunction to prevent the state from enforcing the policy against the camp.
• Award nominal and compensatory damages for the harm caused by the policy’s enforcement.
• Cover attorney’s fees and other legal costs.

Legal Context:

• The complaint cites precedents like Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023) to argue that the state cannot compel religious organizations to act against their beliefs.
• It also references Colorado’s history of accommodating religious exemptions in other contexts, suggesting the state’s policy is inconsistently applied.

Additional Notes:

• The complaint is supported by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a legal organization focused on religious liberty cases.
• The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, with the camp seeking to protect its ability to operate according to its religious convictions while maintaining a safe environment for campers.