There has been a new development in the federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Colorado’s recently enacted “trans” law.
Three groups — Colorado Springs Christian bookstore Born Again Used Books, parent advocacy organizations and women’s sports apparel company XX-XY Athletics — filed the suits to challenge House Bill 25-1312, which became Colorado law in May 2025.
The law requires places of public accommodation, like bookstores, to use people’s “preferred” pronouns and titles, or face discrimination claims.
Each of the three cases requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from enforcing the law against them while litigation proceeds.
Following a recent hearing, it appears the magistrate judge will recommend against granting that temporary protection. However, the final decision will be made by the presiding district judge.
The Law
According to parent rights advocates at Defending Education, the law’s definition of public accommodation is broad enough that it could extend to situations involving parents and children in public settings, potentially exposing individuals to discrimination complaints for speech-related conduct.
Focus on the Family opposed the law, noting it would threaten parental rights and free speech by forcing schools and businesses to adopt “gender-affirming” policies that violate their beliefs.
Focus on the Family President, Jim Daly, spoke out against the bill. Three representatives from the organization testified against the measure, and in support of parental rights and free speech, at the state capitol.
Born Again Used Books Lawsuit
In its July 2025 complaint, Born Again Used Books argued that the law could force the business to communicate messages that conflict with its religious beliefs.
As reported by the Daily Citizen, the bookstore maintains it will serve all customers, but objects to being compelled to use language that conflicts with its belief that sex is biologically determined and immutable.
The owners argue the requirement to use “preferred” pronouns would violate their First Amendment rights.
Parent Advocacy Groups Lawsuit
The plaintiffs in the parent advocacy lawsuit include Defending Education, Colorado Parent Advocacy Network, Protect Kids Colorado, Do No Harm and Dr. Travis Morrell.
Their complaint argues the new law “punishes Coloradans for their speech and compels them to use language endorsing the State’s views on highly contested and highly political matters of sex and gender.”
XX-XY Athletics Lawsuit
XX-XY Athletics, a pro-woman sports apparel company, regularly criticizes policies that allow males to compete in female sports. The company argues the law could require it to use language in advertising and public communications that contradicts its stated views.
The company maintained that being compelled to adopt such language would violate its First Amendment rights.
Recent Legal Action
Although each lawsuit raises distinct legal claims, the court is treating them as related cases for procedural purposes.
Last week, a magistrate judge held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction — which would temporarily block enforcement of the law while the constitutional claims are litigated.
According to Courthouse News Service, the magistrate judge indicated she is likely to recommend denying the injunction. She stated, “The evidence shows the plaintiffs feel more pressure from the public at large than from the state. Thus, from the court’s perspective, plaintiffs’ own statements show an injunction would be of little practical use.”
This suggests the court may not believe the plaintiffs demonstrated the immediate harm necessary to justify emergency relief.
The magistrate judge is expected to issue a written recommendation to U.S. District Judge Regina Rodriguez, who will ultimately decide whether to accept, reject, or modify it.
This decision relates only to a preliminary injunction — not whether the law is constitutional.
What Happens Next
Even if the preliminary injunction is denied, the lawsuit will continue to be litigated on the merits of the case.
The core constitutional claims — involving free speech and religious freedom — remain unresolved.
If temporary relief is ultimately refused, the plaintiffs could appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, but only on the injunction question.
The Daily Citizen will continue to follow this developing story.
