The Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction and Caseload

The Colorado Supreme Court is the state’s court of last resort.  The Court has both original and discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

In fiscal year end 2025, a total of 1,286 cases were filed with the Supreme Court.  Of those, 767 were certiorari petitions seeking discretionary review of intermediate appellate court (primarily Court of Appeals) decisions, and the Court granted review in approximately six percent of those cases.

The Supreme Court also has discretionary jurisdiction to consider original proceeding petitions under C.A.R. 21, certified questions from the federal courts, important questions upon solemn occasions when requested by the Governor or General Assembly, and a number of other types of matters.

And the Court has direct appellate jurisdiction in a limited number of cases, including water cases, Public Utilities Commission cases, cases in which the trial court has declared a statute facially unconstitutional, attorney and judicial discipline cases, interlocutory appeals by the prosecution from certain suppression orders in criminal cases, initiative ballot titles set by the Title Setting Board, election cases, and other cases that bypass the Court of Appeals by law.  See Appendix (outlining  the sources of the Supreme Court’s discretionary and direct appellate jurisdiction).

The Supreme Court issued 70 majority opinions in FY 2025.  It resolved the remainder of the cases on its docket by order.

Certiorari Petitions

The Supreme Court generally does not grant discretionary review solely to correct errors of law that likely affect only the parties in a particular case.  See C.A.R. 49 and 50.  Instead, the Court typically limits its discretionary review to cases raising novel or unsettled legal questions having broad impact throughout Colorado.  Three votes are required to grant a certiorari petition.

With the exception of certiorari petitions involving child welfare matters, which are statutorily expedited and which are circulated directly to the justices for immediate voting at the Court’s next Thursday decisional conference, a staff attorney screens certiorari petitions filed with the Court to make an initial determination as to whether any issues raised warrant deeper review and the preparation of a memorandum.  If the staff attorney perceives no such issues, then the certiorari petition, any opposition and reply briefs, and the underlying appellate decision are distributed directly to the justices as presumptive “non-memo certs.”  The justices then review the papers and vote to grant or deny the petition or to request that a memorandum be prepared. If any justice requests that a memorandum be prepared, then that justice (or another justice selected by the Chief Justice), in collaboration with the justice’s law clerks, prepares a memorandum making a recommendation as to whether to grant or deny certiorari in that matter.  Similarly, if any justice requests that a memorandum be prepared in a child welfare matter, then the matter will be assigned for preparation of a memorandum.

If the reviewing staff attorney perceives at least one issue in a certiorari petition warranting deeper review, then the staff attorney designates that petition for the preparation of a memorandum, and the clerk’s office randomly assigns that petition to one of the seven justice’s chambers for the preparation of a memorandum recommending that the Court grant or deny certiorari.

Memoranda making recommendations as to whether to grant or deny certiorari that are circulated before 5:00 p.m. on a Friday will be placed on the agenda for the Court’s next weekly Thursday decisional conference (during July and August, when the Court does not meet weekly, the justices vote electronically by certain dates determined in advance by the Court).

If the Court votes to grant a certiorari petition in whole or in part, then the Court issues an order specifying the questions accepted for review.  At times, the Court will reframe the parties’ articulation of the issues, most often to remove argumentative language or to clarify the issues that the Court wishes to review.

In addition to deciding whether to grant or deny certiorari on pending petitions, the Court occasionally decides to hold a certiorari petition in abeyance, pending the Court’s review in another case.  The Court does so when it has already granted review on the identical issue in a previously filed petition (or on an issue that may be dispositive of the issue presented in the current case) and when the Court perceives no useful purpose in granting duplicative review in the later-filed case.  When the Court chooses to hold a certiorari petition, it issues a notice advising the parties of the decision to do so and of the case(s) for which the current petition is being held.

Original Petitions, Duty Judge, and Motions Panel

Original petitions under C.A.R. 21 may be filed with the Clerk of the Court and decided by the Court at any time.  Granting review of an original petition, which results in the issuance of an order to show cause, is within the sole discretion of the Court and is rare.  In fiscal year 2025, 234 original petitions were filed with the Court, and the Court issued an order to show cause in only 23 of them.

The issuance of an order to show cause requires the votes of at least four justices, and the issuance of such an order stays all proceedings in the court below.  When a party files a C.A.R. 21 petition, the clerk’s office assigns the petition, on a rotating basis, to one of the six justices not serving as Chief Justice for review and preparation of a memorandum.  This memorandum is frequently in the form of a detailed email, and the justices generally vote by email, although any justice can ask to discuss the matter in person, in which case the matter will be placed on the agenda for the Court’s next Thursday decisional conference (on rare occasions, as, for example, when the matter raises an urgent question requiring expedited consideration, the Court will convene an immediate conference to discuss and take action on a petition).   The assigned justice may also issue a short-term stay or other temporary order, pending the Court’s decision on the petition.  C.A.R. 21 petitions filed by unrepresented litigants are initially reviewed by a staff attorney who makes a dispositional recommendation to the Court, generally by email, with the justices voting by email.

In deciding whether to grant a C.A.R. 21 petition, the Court considers, among other things, whether the petitioner has established a basis for the Court’s immediate intervention in the matter and whether the petitioner would have an adequate appellate remedy absent the Court’s intervention.  Because C.A.R. 21 review is not intended to be a substitute for appeal in the ordinary course, if the petitioner would have an adequate appellate remedy absent the Court’s intervention, even if the appellate remedy may be delayed and such delay could result in additional expenditures of time and money, the Court will likely deny review.

Upon granting an order to show cause, the Court sets a full briefing schedule.  Once the briefing is completed, if the parties have not requested oral argument and the Court has not set oral argument on its own initiative, then the matter will be placed on the Court’s next Thursday conference agenda for a vote.  The Court may decide such matters in a full opinion or by order, in the Court’s discretion.

In addition to the foregoing processes, the Chief Justice assigns in rotation a justice to serve as a monthly Duty Justice and two justices to serve as a motions panel to review procedural motions on behalf of the Court.  The assigned Duty Justice or motions panel is authorized to rule on behalf of the Court on matters brought to the justice or panel by a staff attorney or by the clerk’s office.  Such matters generally include motions for amicus curiae appearances, extensions of time, or enlargements of the word limits applicable to certiorari petitions or merits briefs.  The Duty Justice and motions panel can always request consideration of such matters by the entire Court.

Oral Argument, Case Assignment, and Decision-Making

The Court works collegially.  In addition to formal conferences in which all justices participate, justices frequently confer informally on judicial and administrative matters before the Court. Such conversations allow the justices to take advantage of the enormous breadth and diversity of work and life experiences that the justices, collectively, bring to the table.

The Court has a twelve-month work year.  From September through June, the justices meet almost every Thursday in conference to consider and decide all pending matters that are ready for vote.  Such matters include final votes on opinions, petitions for rehearing, matters presented on the briefs without oral argument, certiorari petitions, emergency matters, and a wide array of administrative matters, including proposed amendments to the rules of procedure and evidence governing the Colorado state courts and the regulation of the legal profession in Colorado.  During July and August, the Court does not hold weekly conferences or issue opinions, but the justices continue to work on opinions, and they vote electronically on pending certiorari petitions and original proceedings.

The Court typically schedules nine to ten oral argument calendars between September and June, with each calendar lasting two or three days.  After oral argument, the justices deliberate, and the Chief Justice assigns who will write the opinion for the Court in each case, based on the justices’ preliminary votes.  In this regard, the Colorado Supreme Court differs from the United States Supreme Court. In Colorado, the Chief Justice makes the opinion-writing assignment whether or not she is in the majority. In the United State Supreme Court, the Chief Justice assigns the opinion-writing responsibility if he is in the majority, and if he is not, then the senior justice in the majority makes the assignment.

On rare occasions, a final vote of the Court may result in a shift in the majority opinion (e.g., a 4-3 vote to affirm may become a 4-3 vote to reverse).  When this occurs, the Chief Justice reassigns the majority opinion as necessary.

When more than one justice votes to concur in a separate opinion or to dissent, those justices confer informally and agree on who will take the lead in writing the separate opinion.

The Court livestreams all of its all oral arguments, and the public may watch these arguments on the Oral Arguments Broadcast page.

In addition to cases decided after oral argument, the Court sometimes decides cases submitted on the briefs without oral argument.  Such cases include interlocutory appeals from certain suppression orders in criminal cases; review of constitutional or statutory citizen initiative ballot titles set by the Ballot Title Setting Board; original petitions following the issuance of an order to show cause; and attorney discipline cases.  In these cases, the parties might also request oral argument, and the Court has discretion as to whether to grant such requests.  The Court may also order oral argument in such cases on its own initiative.

In general, four affirmative votes of the seven justices are required to decide any matter coming before the Court, although one or more justices may decide, based on judicial ethics rules, not to participate in a particular case.  If, due to a recusal or multiple recusals, an even number of justices participate in a case and the vote on the matter is evenly split, then the Court issues an order indicating that, by operation of law, the decision below is affirmed by an evenly divided court, and the order indicates how the participating justices voted in the matter.  The Court’s order in such a matter has no precedential effect.

During one fall and one spring oral argument calendar, the Court convenes at a high school, college, or law school for oral argument in two cases as part of the Court’s Courts in the Community Program.  Staff attorneys meet with teachers in advance to help facilitate preparing the students for the arguments that they will have the opportunity to watch.  Immediately following the arguments, students are given the opportunity to ask questions of the lawyers who presented the arguments, as well as of the justices, although the students are instructed that they cannot ask the justices questions concerning the merits of the cases just argued or other matters pending for decision before the Court.

Proposed Opinions

Newly proposed majority opinions must be circulated by the authoring justice to the other six justices by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday in order to be included on the following Thursday’s weekly conference agenda.  Each justice may propose only one new opinion for the next Thursday conference.  Any justice then has until the following Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. to propose a written concurrence or dissent.  By noon on Tuesday, each justice sends an email to the other justices indicating whether the justice intends to concur with, concur by separate opinion, or dissent from a proposed majority opinion that has been scheduled for vote at the Thursday conference.  These are preliminary votes.  The final vote on the proposed majority opinion and concurring or dissenting opinions that are ready for vote occurs at the Thursday conference.  Before a Thursday conference, any justice, including the majority opinion’s authoring justice, may request that the vote be passed to the following week’s conference either in favor of a discussion of the matter at the upcoming conference or because the justice needs more time to consider the matter or to write a concurring or dissenting opinion.  The justices work hard to avoid requests to pass a matter more than once.

As a matter of courtesy and collegiality, a majority opinion does not argue with a concurring or dissenting opinion but is written to stand on its own.  Also as a matter of courtesy and collegiality, each justice works to review the proposed opinions of the other justices as a first priority in dealing with pending work.  When disagreement between justices occurs on any matter, they confer with each other concerning the disagreement, to the extent possible, before conference.  This process results in changes to proposed opinions that are circulated to all of the justices.  An opinion that has received a majority vote at the weekly decisional conference is prepared in final slip opinion form, together with any concurring or dissenting opinion, by noon on Friday.  Each issued opinion is accompanied by a cover page synopsis of the case prepared by the authoring justice.

Thursday Decisional Conference

The Court's weekly Thursday decisional conference typically begins at 9:00 a.m., and each justice is expected to attend or, if absent (a rare occasion), to circulate a vote sheet for all pending matters ready for decision.  The Chief Justice presides over the discussion and votes are taken, proceeding from junior to senior justice, with the Chief Justice voting last.  Any justice may request that a matter be passed to the next conference for a vote, and the present conference may be used for discussion of the matter rather than an immediate vote.  Passing a matter is a courtesy asked by one justice of the others; a justice’s request to pass the case for vote at a future conference is always honored.

The order of business for vote at the Thursday conference is typically as follows: proposed final opinions; petitions for rehearing on issued opinions; cases submitted on the briefs without oral argument; certiorari petitions for which memoranda have been prepared; certiorari petitions in child welfare matters; C.A.R. 21 or other original proceedings that have not otherwise been voted on by email; and administrative matters, including rule changes and any other matters concerning governance of the Court or the judicial branch.  At the conclusion of the agenda, the justices share with one another any other matters of potential interest (e.g., presentations given by the justice and reports on meetings or events that the justice attended), and the justices have lunch together.

Decisions of the Court are announced the Monday following the Thursday conference as Case Announcements, but the case numbers and case captions of opinions to be issued on Mondays are posted the preceding Friday.  

Recusals

A justice may determine not to participate in any decision upon considering the Code of Judicial Conduct.  An opinion of the Court will identify any justice who is not participating.  A non-participating justice need not explain the reason for not participating.

Judicial Nominating Commissions

The Chief Justice serves as the ex officio chair of the statewide Judicial Nominating Commission that selects three candidates for each vacancy that occurs periodically on the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.  The other six justices take turns, in rotation, serving as ex officio chairs of the twenty-three Judicial District Nominating Commissions that select up to three candidates for each vacancy occurring periodically for district court and county court judgeships.  In fiscal year 2025, the justices chaired 33 nominating commission meetings.  These involved 11 vacancies at the county court level; 23 at the district court level; and 2 for the Court of Appeals.  More information regarding the judicial nominating process is available on the Judicial Nominating Commissions page.

Under the Colorado Constitution, the City and County of Denver has its own nominating commission process for Denver County Court judges.

Supreme Court Library

The Supreme Court Library serves judicial officers, lawyers, staff, and members of the public.  It specializes in issue-specific legal research, legal reference, and historical legal research.

The library is open to all members of the bench, bar, and general public.  Library services include free access to certain legal databases, use of legal treatises and other print materials in the library, and professional reference and research assistance. The library staff may not provide legal advice, but all members of the library team are highly skilled in providing access to legal information. Please see the Library’s website (link is external) for additional information.

Colorado Judicial Learning Center

The Colorado Judicial Learning Center is a 4,000-square-foot museum-style space that includes interactive, fun, and informative exhibits.  The Learning Center’s theme is the rule of law and its operation in state and federal courts.  The Center’s many interactive exhibits and displays include videotaped interviews of judges speaking about their daily work, compilations of significant milestones in Colorado legal history, simulated trials, and educational content regarding the different levels of courts in Colorado and the constitution and laws applicable in judicial proceedings in this state.  More information is available on the Learning Center's website (link is external).

Conclusion

The Court’s work is multi-faceted.  Each justice plays a direct role in all business coming before the Court, unless the justice has determined that he or she should not participate in any particular matter.  Upon invitation, justices also often participate in continuing legal education and civic education programs throughout Colorado (and sometimes nationally), as well as in bar, American Inns of Court, and other law-related activities and events.