WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 176

State Remedies for Constitutional Rights Violation

2026 Regular Session

Colorado enacts a state-law remedy for rights violations by anyone acting under color of state/local law, mirroring §1983 with state-specific limits and two-year filing.

Senate Committee on Judiciary Postpone Indefinitely
#courts&judicial
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 176

Summary of Colorado SB 176 (2026 Session) — State Remedies for Constitutional Rights Violation

Purpose and Intent

  • Establishes state-level remedies in Colorado for violations of rights secured by the United States Constitution when actions are taken under color of state or local law.
  • The bill is titled the “No Kings Act.”

Key Provisions

1) New statutory remedy and scope

  • Creates new Colorado Code section 13-20-1302: Liability for violation of constitutional rights — relief — immunity — time limit — definition.
  • Core concept: A person acting under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage in Colorado who deprives another of U.S. constitutional rights may be liable for legal or equitable relief to the injured party.
  • Important caveat: For actions against a judicial officer for acts or omissions in the officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief is available only if a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

2) Attorney’s fees and costs

  • Prevailing plaintiff may be awarded reasonable attorney fees as part of costs (discretionary by the court).
  • Judicial officers sued for acts within their official capacity are not liable for costs or attorney fees unless their conduct was clearly beyond the scope of their jurisdiction.
  • Courts may include expert fees in attorney-fee awards.
  • If the defendant prevails, the court may award costs and attorney fees to the defendant if the court finds the claims frivolous.

3) Immunity defenses

  • Defendants may raise absolute or qualified immunity defenses to the same extent as available under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, under similar circumstances.

4) Time limits

  • Civil actions brought under this new section must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues.
  • This aligns with the general limitations framework elsewhere in Colorado law (see related changes below).

5) Related amendments and definitions

  • Amends 13-80-102 (General limitation of actions) to add two new subsections:
    • (l) An action alleging a deprivation of constitutional rights brought pursuant to section 13-20-1302.
    • (k) All actions brought under 13-21-109(2) (existing provisions, retained and updated in context).

6) Severability and safety clause

  • Standard severability provision: if any part is invalid, the rest remains in effect.
  • Safety clause: declares immediate effect for public peace, health, safety, or for appropriations, as applicable.

Who/What Is Affected

  • Plaintiffs alleging violations of federal constitutional rights by persons acting under color of state or local law in Colorado.
  • Defendants could include state actors, local government officials, and potentially others acting under color of law.
  • Judicial officers are subject to a specific immunities framework and limitations on injunctive relief and fee-shifting when acting in their official capacity.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Action must be filed within two years after accrual of the cause of action.
  • The bill provides procedural guidance on attorney fees, expert fees, and the potential for sanctions/funding decisions in frivolous claims.
  • Provides a defined cause of action under Colorado law that parallels federal Section 1983 remedies but with state-specific provisions and limitations.

Observations

  • The bill creates a state-law analogue to federal §1983 claims, with additional nuances for immunity and attorney-fee allocations.
  • It explicitly limits injunctive relief against judges to cases where a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief unavailable.
  • The two-year limitations period sets a concrete deadline for plaintiffs, potentially shorter or longer than other related actions depending on accrual timing.

If you’d like, I can add a side-by-side comparison with 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and summarize potential policy implications or anticipated implementation questions for courts and government entities.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.