On Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled two state statutes unconstitutional.
In Hinds v. Foreman, 2026 CO 9, __ P.3d __, the Court considered a single issue: Whether a final judgment granting a special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP (“strategic lawsuit against public participation”) statute may be appealed from a county court directly to the court of appeals. The Court answered “no”: statutes authorizing appeal from county court directly to the court of appeals are unconstitutional.
The underlying dispute arose when plaintiff Rebeca Hinds sued her neighbor, Corrine Foreman, in county court over statements Foreman made to law enforcement about Hinds. Foreman filed a special motion to dismiss Hinds’ lawsuit, arguing that her statements were protected speech under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute. The county court agreed with Foreman and dismissed Hinds’ suit with prejudice. Hinds appealed the dismissal to the Colorado court of appeals, as authorized by a specific provision of the anti-SLAPP statute, section 13‑20‑1101(7), C.R.S. (2025).
On appeal, a division of the court of appeals flagged the jurisdictional problem. Section 13‑20‑1101(7) states that the court of appeals has jurisdiction over appeals from special motions to dismiss in actions involving constitutional rights pursuant to section 13‑4‑102.2, C.R.S. (2025) (stating the same).
However, Article VI, Section 17 of the Colorado Constitution—establishing the jurisdiction of county courts—states that “[a]ppellate review by the supreme court or the district courts of every final judgment of the county courts shall be as provided by law.” (Emphases added.) Using a special procedural mechanism, the division sent the question to the Colorado Supreme Court, asking the Court to resolve the tension between the statutes and the Constitution.
The Court held that the two statutes were unconstitutional. In a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter, the Court explained that the Constitution is the state’s supreme law and that the Constitution limits the power of the General Assembly. When a legislative act conflicts with a provision of the Constitution, the Constitution wins out.
Here, Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution provides that a county court’s “final judgment” is appealable only to the district court or the supreme court. (The Court noted that the county court’s dismissal of Hinds’ case with prejudice was a final judgment.) This means statutes authorizing appeal from the county court to the court of appeals directly violate the Constitution and must be declared unconstitutional. Further, a statute may not attempt to “subtract” jurisdiction from another court in violation of the Constitution.
The Court’s opinion did not strike down the statutes entirely. It noted that the court of appeals may still have jurisdiction over non-final judgments from county courts. The Court suggested that the General Assembly craft a more elegant solution to the question of county court appeals.
The Court concluded that the division did not have jurisdiction to hear Hinds’ appeal and remanded the case to the division with instructions to dismiss the case. Because Hinds could not reasonably have anticipated that she should have filed her appeal in district court, she will be permitted to re-file her appeal in the district court.