AURORA | The City of Aurora filed a petition for rehearing with the Colorado Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices to clarify the reach of a recent ruling that limits municipal criminal penalties, while saying it will comply with the decision as written and await the court’s response.
The petition stems from a Dec. 22 unanimous ruling in “People v. Simons” and a related case, “People v. Camp,” in which the state’s high court held that cities may not impose longer jail sentences for misdemeanor offenses than those allowed under state law for comparable crimes. The decision struck down Aurora ordinances that mandated tougher penalties for offenses such as shoplifting, trespassing and leaving a restaurant without paying.
Aurora officials say they are not challenging the outcome of the case. Instead, they are seeking guidance on whether the court’s reasoning could extend beyond criminal sentencing to other areas of local governance.
“To be clear – Aurora is not asking the court to change its ultimate holding in the case,” City Attorney Pete Schulte said in a statement. “The city is committed to following the holding and will not sentence any individuals beyond what is allowed under state law for comparable state offenses. Aurora is only asking the court to consider providing more clarity and guidance to cities on its effect on other areas of Colorado law.”
In its ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that state law preempts local laws on issues of “mixed concern,” determining that state lawmakers intended sentencing rules to be consistent statewide. Schulte and other city officials say the court’s reliance on what is known as “intended preemption” — where legislative intent is inferred rather than explicitly stated — marks a shift that could have wide-ranging consequences.
— Read the Colorado Supreme Court decision here.
— Read the petition for rehearing here.
“The big issue is, how deep does it go?” Schulte said in a recent interview. “Is it just limited to the criminal justice system, or does it go to other areas of law, like land use?”
Aurora attorneys earlier requested, and were granted, additional time to consider whether to seek a rehearing. Schulte told city lawmakers in a closed session meeting earlier this month that the ruling had raised concerns about how a variety of existing city laws might be affected, possibly including zoning, land use and other regulations unrelated to criminal penalties.
The Dec. 22 decision followed lawsuits challenging ordinances adopted after Republicans gained a majority on the Aurora City Council in 2021 and pushed a tougher-on-crime agenda. Those measures increased and, in some cases, required jail time for misdemeanors tied to theft, homelessness and public order offenses.
The Supreme Court ruled that municipal courts in Aurora, Denver and Westminster were wrongly required to impose longer jail sentences than defendants would have received in state court for the same convictions. As a result, Aurora must revisit hundreds of cases and reduce sentences to align with state limits.
Denver has already begun revising its misdemeanor assault sentencing in response to the ruling, according to a report by The Denver Post. Westminster and Denver did not join Aurora in seeking additional time to consider a rehearing, and Westminster officials were not immediately available for comment on Aurora’s filing.
Public defenders have raised concerns about delays. Aurora Chief Public Defender Elizabeth Cadiz said earlier this month she worries that a rehearing request could slow the process of correcting sentences for affected clients.
City officials say they are moving forward with compliance regardless of the petition. The ruling has not been stayed and remains in effect. Aurora’s Public Safety and Courts Committee and Civil Service Commission are expected to review changes needed to bring municipal penalties into line with state law, City Council member Alison Coombs said.
Schulte said the city’s uncertainty underscores the need for clarity.
“Every statute now we’re going to have to consider whether there could be an intended preemption, even though it’s not explicit,” he said. “That’s what we’re trying to figure out moving forward.”