The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that state statutes permitting direct appeals from county courts to the court of appeals in anti-SLAPP cases violate the state constitution, fundamentally reshaping the appellate framework for strategic lawsuit against public participation cases.
In *Rebeca Hinds v. Corrine Foreman*, decided Feb. 2, the court held that sections 13-20-1101 and 13-4-102.2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes are unconstitutional to the extent they authorize the court of appeals to review final judgments from county courts. The decision affects how anti-SLAPP cases move through Colorado's court system.
The case arose when Rebeca Hinds sought to appeal a county court's final judgment granting a special motion to dismiss under Colorado's anti-SLAPP statute. Anti-SLAPP laws protect defendants from lawsuits designed to silence public participation through expensive litigation.
Under the challenged statutes, parties could appeal county court anti-SLAPP decisions directly to the Colorado Court of Appeals, bypassing the typical appellate hierarchy. This process was intended to provide expedited review for cases involving free speech and public participation rights.
However, the Colorado Supreme Court determined this direct appeal route violated Article VI, Section 17 of the Colorado Constitution. Justice Monica Marquez Berkenkotter, writing for the court, explained that the constitutional provision requires final judgments from county courts to be reviewed either by district courts or the supreme court itself.
"The supreme court holds that section 13-20-1101 and section 13-4-102.2, C.R.S. (2025), are unconstitutional to the extent that they authorize the court of appeals to review a final judgment of a county court," the court wrote in its opinion.
The constitutional requirement establishes a specific appellate hierarchy that cannot be circumvented by statute. County courts sit at the bottom of Colorado's judicial structure, with district courts handling most trial-level matters and appeals from county courts. The court of appeals typically reviews district court decisions, while the supreme court serves as the state's highest judicial authority.
By allowing direct appeals from county courts to the court of appeals, the anti-SLAPP statutes created an unauthorized shortcut that violated this constitutional framework. The court emphasized that legislative attempts to modify appellate jurisdiction must comply with constitutional mandates.
The decision has immediate practical consequences for pending anti-SLAPP appeals. The court concluded that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over Hinds' appeal and remanded the case with directions to dismiss. This ruling likely affects other similar appeals currently pending before the court of appeals.
For future anti-SLAPP cases originating in county courts, parties seeking appellate review must now follow the constitutionally prescribed path. Final county court judgments in anti-SLAPP matters must be appealed either to district courts or directly to the Colorado Supreme Court, depending on the specific circumstances and applicable procedural rules.
The ruling does not invalidate Colorado's anti-SLAPP statute entirely. The law continues to provide protections against strategic lawsuits aimed at chilling public participation. However, the appellate process for these cases must now conform to constitutional requirements.
Anti-SLAPP statutes have become increasingly important legal tools as courts nationwide grapple with lawsuits that may suppress free speech rights. These laws typically allow defendants to file special motions to dismiss cases that target protected speech or petitioning activity, shifting the burden to plaintiffs to demonstrate their claims have merit.
Colorado's anti-SLAPP law provides similar protections, allowing defendants to seek dismissal of cases that arise from communications made in connection with public issues or matters of public concern. The statute aims to balance free speech protections with legitimate litigation rights.
The *Hinds* decision represents a significant constitutional interpretation that clarifies the limits of legislative authority over appellate jurisdiction. While lawmakers can create procedural mechanisms to facilitate certain types of appeals, they cannot override constitutional mandates governing court hierarchy and jurisdiction.
Legal practitioners handling anti-SLAPP cases must now adjust their appellate strategies to comply with the constitutional framework outlined in this decision. The ruling may also prompt legislative review of anti-SLAPP procedures to ensure compliance with constitutional requirements.
The case was decided by the full court, with Chief Justice Brian Boatright and Justices Richard Gabriel, William Hood, Carlos Samour, and Melissa Hart joining Justice Berkenkotter's opinion. The unanimous decision underscores the court's commitment to enforcing constitutional limitations on appellate jurisdiction.
Moving forward, the decision clarifies that constitutional requirements for appellate review cannot be bypassed through statutory provisions, even when those provisions serve important policy goals like protecting free speech rights. The ruling ensures that Colorado's court system maintains its constitutionally mandated structure while preserving anti-SLAPP protections through proper appellate channels.