Colorado judge finds no credible threat to Christian groups simply for deadnaming

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (CN) — Following a Thursday hearing, a federal magistrate made an oral recommendation denying several Christian groups and businesses' request for an injunction against a Colorado law that they fear criminalizes the deadnaming and misgendering of transgender people.

“The evidence shows the plaintiffs feel more pressure from the public at large than from the state,” said U.S. Magistrate Maritza Dominguez Braswell from the bench. “Thus from the court’s perspective, plaintiffs’ own statements show an injunction would be of little practical use.”

In three separate lawsuits, Christian bookstore Born Again Books, clothing retailer XX-XY Athletics and parent group Defending Education challenged a 2025 Centennial State law, "Legal Protections for Transgender Individuals."

Also know as the Kelly Loving Act, the law added a definition of the term “chosen name” under the decades-old Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. In their lawsuits, the plaintiffs claimed the change criminalized the practice of misgendering and deadnaming transgender people, actions which the plaintiffs said reflect their own sincerely-held beliefs in gender being immutable and determined at birth.

“Our plaintiffs want to be using biologically-accurate pronouns,” argued attorney Paul Draper who represents Defending Education. “The law is currently chilling our plaintiffs’ speech.”

Draper, of Arlington, Virginia firm Consovoy McCarthy, was joined attorney Mercer Martin, who spoke on behalf of XX-YY Athletics and Born Again Books. Martin practices with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative in challenges to the Colorado Civil Rights Division that went up to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

Draper and Martin argued that their clients fear the state agency bringing discrimination actions against them for misgendering and deadnaming transgender people, speech they believe is protected by the First Amendment.

Colorado attorney Jana Fischer, however, said the state has no intention of pursuing discrimination claims over speech.

“The chain of events that plaintiffs list are speculative Sunday events,” Fischer argued. “This case is different from Masterpiece because there was an actual denial of service, and 303 Creative had someone who wanted to put up a statement that would deny service. Here all of the businesses say they will happily serve anyone. The CEO of XX-XY said she would happily sell anyone all of her clothes, and she doesn’t have to know someone’s gender to sell them a sports bra.”

Fischer also pointed out that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act has provided protections against gender discrimination for nearly 20 years and flagged the creation of an "unwelcome" environment as discriminatory in the 1970s.

Hearing the state disavow anti-discrimination enforcement over speech alone, Braswell said she struggled to see how the plaintiffs faced a credible threat.

“You call it a deadnaming and misgendering ban, but I don’t see that in the statute,” Braswell said.

Braswell also found the plaintiffs’ request to block not just the new “chosen name” provision, but older portions of the law overbroad.

“You’re asking for an injunction that prevents defendants from enforcing multiple provisions of CADA, some of which have been in place for a very long time,” Braswell said. “It seems like a carte blanche to discriminate without consequence.”

In issuing her verbal recommendation to deny the injunction, Braswell declined to take a position on whether the Colorado actually law violates the plaintiffs’ rights or if the state’s motion to dismiss should be granted.

Ultimately, Joe Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Regina Rodriguez will decide whether to adopt or reject Braswell’s recommendation.

Follow @bright_lamp