When lawmakers silence citizens, who holds them accountable?

By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project

Does legislative immunity mean CO legislators who cut people’s testimony off face no personal consequence?

The Colorado Politics article below details a recent Federal appeals court hearing to determine what limits a legislator could place on a citizen’s speech without facing consequences.

The case at hand stems from a couple of hearings back in the regular 2024 legislative session. The plaintiffs in the suit allege that lawmakers who cut off the mics of those trying to testify on bills relating to gender issues were illegally censoring them.**

Quoting the article: “The plaintiffs have argued that Democratic committee chairs inappropriately cut them off while they were testifying because the witnesses refused to refer to certain people by the names and pronouns that corresponded with their gender identity.”

You might be tempted to say, well, yes it does. Whether you agree with what bills were about or not, whether you agree about whether or not you should use someone’s preferred pronouns, they have the right to express their opinion on the bills and use whatever pronouns they like. Thus, a lawmaker cutting someone off is violating their rights to free speech.

You might be tempted to think that, but you don’t think like a judge if you do.

You see, there are matters relating to the pretty wording of law. Quoting again to flesh out the original trial court ruling, “Last November, U.S. District Court Judge Regina M. Rodriguez dismissed the lawsuit against Weissman, Gonzales and other lawmakers. She noted that neither the 10th Circuit nor the U.S. Supreme Court had addressed whether lawmakers are entitled to legislative immunity for their enforcement of decorum rules during public testimony. ‘Under the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that Defendants’ alleged acts were related to Defendants’ legislative function of overseeing public testimony on pending legislation and gathering relevant information and input from the public. These are “integral steps in the legislative process,”’ wrote Rodriguez, a Joe Biden appointee.”

Legislative immunity is a legal doctrine that protects legislators from personal liability for actions or decisions made during official legislative business. The theory behind it being that you don’t want a legislator having to do their work factoring in concerns about personal liability for their legislative actions.

The plaintiffs appealed the ruling arguing (what to me is the common sense interpretation) that a government official cutting you off from speaking your piece has violated your First Amendment rights.

There’s a lot more legal back and forth along with the sorts of hypothetical questions appellate (and higher) judges are known for. I will leave to you to read if you want. I’ll be honest, I don’t understand how this could even be a question. I fail to see how a violation of someone’s First Amendment rights could need any such legal sophistry.

Legislative immunity wouldn’t protect a legislator from liability if they hit someone with their car parking at the capitol, no? What I mean by that is that there are some actions bad enough that they shouldn’t be clothed in legislative immunity. Cutting the mic of a citizen because you disagree, depriving them of their rights to speak their minds to their government is one of them. It’s bad enough that there shouldn’t be any need to parse out legal estoerica.

This is one case where legislators should have a little bit of fear, fear that includes some personal civil liability attached to it. If not, what’s to prevent a legislator from feeling free to trample your rights in this or other ways as long as it happens during the legislative session? They need some fear to help them remember.

I hope the appellate judges have enough sense to rule according to obvious common sense. If I hear an update, I’ll share.

**For more context around the suit and hearings, check out the second link below.

https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/09/12/10th-circuit-weighs-courts-authority-to-block-colorado-legislative-decorum-rules

https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2024/04/08/lawsuit-alleges-colorado-lawmakers-suppressed-free-speech-on-transgender-name-change-bill-1999e381-f9c8-5b05-aee0-fce2bac4d4be

---

In defending its assault weapons ban, Superior, CO is twisting the law til it screams.

I have shared videos by Washington Gun Law before; they are a great resource for gun control law, bouncing back and forth between national gun cases and local laws.

This now, sadly, includes Colorado where over the past 4 years our state’s ruling Democrats have put us in the same gun control category as California (see “Related” below), Washington, and Oregon. They’ve made us frequent cautionary tales on channels like Washington Gun Law’s.

READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT THE COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.