Colorado

Summary: This is an animal law case.

Summary: This law, effective August 6, 2025, requires health-related research facilities to offer dogs and cats to shelters, rescues, or internal adoption programs before euthanasia, unless done for research, health, or safety reasons. It grants civil immunity for good-faith transfers and mandates annual reporting to the Department of Agriculture on the number of animals transferred or adopted. The law defines key terms like “animal,” “health-related research,” and “chemical substance,” and it yields to conflicting provisions of the federal Animal Welfare Act.

Summary: This Colorado case involves the appeal of the dismissal of a habeas corpus proceeding. The appeal asked the Colorado Supreme Court to decide whether the liberty interests protected by the "great writ of habeas corpus" extend to nonhuman animals. Petitioner Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. (“NRP”) contends that the district court erred in dismissing its habeas petition because the five elephants that are the subject of the petition, Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo (“the elephants”), lacked standing to seek relief via the great writ. These elderly elephants live at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo (“CMZ”) and where NRP asserts they were unlawfully confined. In support of this contention, NRP submitted affidavits from several animal biologists who stated that these intelligent and complex creatures are suffering from psychological disorders and stress from being in captivity. The Zoo countered with a motion to dismiss, arguing the elephants received extraordinary care and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim because the elephants do not have standing to seek habeas relief. After the district court granted the motion to dismiss, this court sought to determine whether habeas corpus relief extends to nonhuman animals. The court first looked at Colorado's statutory grant of authority for habeas relief. In doing so, the court found that the statute grants "any person" the ability to seek habeas relief from illegal confinement or restraint of liberty. While "person" is not defined in the law, the court found other statutory definitions that limit "person" to mean "human being." This definition is bolstered by the plain and ordinary meaning of the word "person." Since Colorado's law explicitly limits habeas corpus relief to "persons," the court was unpersuaded by NRP to expand the writ to animals based on common law interpretations. Further, the court noted that even if the statute did not say "person," it would still not be persuaded to expand the writ because no other jurisdiction has recognized "personhood" for nonhuman species, expansion would have "unintended consequences" for interactions between humans and animals, and there is no evidence the Colorado legislature ever intended to recognize animals as legal persons in the statute. This court affirmed the district court's finding that Colorado's writ of habeas corpus does not apply to nonhuman animals.

Summary: Proposition 127 would have made it illegal to hunt bobcat, lynx, and mountain lions in Colorado. The measure failed with 44.53% voting yes and 55.47% voting no on the measure. According to the ballot language, "Proposition 127 would prohibit intentionally killing, wounding, pursuing, entrapping, or discharging a deadly weapon at bobcats, lynx, and mountain lions in Colorado. While the measure uses the term 'trophy hunting,' it bans all hunting, pursuing, or entrapping of bobcats, lynx, and mountain lions regardless of intent. Individuals convicted of any of these activities are subject to up to 364 days in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both, and a five-year prohibition on holding a license issued by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), with more stringent penalties for subsequent convictions."

Summary: This case concerns several charges of animal cruelty against petitioner Caswell. A welfare check was conducted by a deputy at the Lincoln County Sheriff’s office in response to a report on Ms. Caswell. After two welfare checks were conducted, the deputies executed a search warrant at the Caswell residence, resulting in the seizure of sixty animals. These animals lacked sufficient food or water, were kept in enclosed spaces filled with feces and urine, and many of the animals were underweight or had untreated medical problems. Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, charged Ms. Caswell with forty-three class six counts of cruelty to animals, which were charged as felonies because Ms. Caswell had prior convictions of misdemeanor animal cruelty on her record. The jury found Caswell guilty of all forty-three counts and sentenced her to eight years of probation, forty-three days in jail, and forty-seven days of in-home detention. An appeal followed and the holding was affirmed. Petitioner filed for certiorari and the Supreme Court of Colorado granted. Here, petitioner argues that the use of her prior convictions for animal cruelty to enhance her charges to felonies violates the Sixth Amendment and article II of the Colorado Constitution. The court first considered whether the legislature meant to make the statutory provision used to enhance Caswell’s sentence as an element versus a sentence enhancer. The court here listed five factors to consider whether a fact is an element or sentencing factor: (1) the statute's language and structure, (2) tradition, (3) the risk of unfairness, (4) the severity of the sentence, and (5) the statute's legislative history. Four of these five factors signaled a legislative intent to designate it a sentence enhancer, so the court concluded that the legislature intended to designate the fact of prior convictions as a sentence enhancer rather than an element. The court also concluded that the sentence did not violate the Sixth Amendment or article II of the Colorado Constitution, and affirmed the holding of the lower court.

Summary: This section of Colorado law regulates the confinement of egg-laying hens in the state. Under these laws, egg-laying hens must be confined in conditions that allow them at least one square foot of usable floor space. Certain exceptions apply, such as for slaughter or veterinary purposes. Violators of these laws may be subjected to a civil penalty of no more than one thousand dollars.

Summary: The Traveling Animal Protection Act, effective in 2021, bans the use of several listed animals in performances and traveling animal acts. Among other listed families include members of the wild felidae (cat) family, marsupial family, nonhuman primate family, elephant family, and seal family. This law does not prohibit exhibition at a wildlife sanctuary, AZA accredited institution, certain environmental education programs, livestock exhibition including rodeos, use in films,and university usage done in compliance with the AWA.

Summary: This 2020 Colorado law allows a person to have a pet dog in an outdoor dining area of a retail food establishment if several conditions are met (including, but not limited to, the presence of a separate entrance for the dogs and their owners, requiring owners to keep dogs on leashes or in pet carriers, and not allowing the dogs on furniture or fixtures). The law allows a retail food establishment to elect not to allow dogs in its outdoor dining area. In addition, the governing body of a city, county, or city and county may prohibit the presence of pet dogs in outdoor dining areas of retail food establishments located within the governing body's jurisdiction

Summary: This Colorado statute relates to mandatory reporting for child abuse or neglect. With respect to animal-related issues, the statute requires veterinarians, officers and agents of the state bureau of animal protection, and animal control officers to report suspected abuse or neglect as described in the law.

Summary: This Colorado law enacted in 2019 states that a court may order order that a witness's testimony be offered while a court facility dog is in the courtroom during a criminal proceeding if the judge determines by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the presence of a court facility dog with the witness during the witness's testimony would reduce the witness's anxiety and enhance the ability of the court to receive full and accurate testimony; (2) the arrangements for an available court facility dog during the witness's testimony would not interfere with efficient criminal proceedings; and (3) no prejudice would result to any party due to the presence of a court facility dog with the witness. A "court facility dog" must be a graduate of an accredited internationally recognized assistance dog organization.