Gays Against Groomers v. Garcia

── Gays Against Groomers v. Garcia ── Case No.: 24-1473 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 10, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 24-1473 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH March 10, 2026 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ GAYS AGAINST GROOMERS, a nonprofit corporation; ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOMEN’S NETWORK, an unincorporated association; RICH GUGGENHEIM, an individual; CHRISTINA GOEKE, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 24-1473 v. LORENA GARCIA, individually and in her official capacity as a Colorado State Representative; MIKE WEISSMAN, individually and in his official capacity as a Colorado State Representative and Chair of the House Judiciary Committee; LESLIE HEROD, individually and in her official capacity as a Colorado State Representative; JULIE GONZALES, individually and in her official capacity as a Colorado State Senator and Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee; DAFNA MICHAELSON JENET, individually and in her official capacity as a Colorado State Senator, Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________  Appellate Case: 24-1473 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2026 Page: 2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 1:24-CV-00913-RMR) _________________________________ Endel Kolde (Brett R. Nolan and Courtney Corbello with him on the briefs), of the Institute for Free Speech, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Edward T. Ramey (Martha M. Tierney with him on the brief), of Tierney Lawrence Stiles LLC, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________ Before CARSON, EBEL, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ FEDERICO, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ For millennia, deliberative bodies across the world have set their own rules for debating matters of concern so that they may better affect the public business with “order, decency, and regularity.” Thomas Jefferson, Manual of Parliamentary Practice 18 (Jonathan Phillips 1848). 1 Today, legislatures across the country are debating a matter of significant public interest – the rights of transgender persons – within these broad parameters. This appeal concerns not the substance of these debates, but rather their procedural rules, and whether a federal court may inquire into 1 For a brief history of parliamentary practice, see generally George Demeter, Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure 4–5 (Blue Book ed. 1969). 2  Appellate Case: 24-1473 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 03/10/2026 Page: 3 the lawfulness of those rules in a suit against legislators in their official capacity. We hold that it may not. Gays Against Groomers, Rocky Mountain Women’s Network, Rich Guggenheim, and Christina Goeke (together “GAG”) sued Lorena Garcia, Mike Weissman, Leslie Herod, Julie Gonzales, and Dafna Jenet (together the “Legislators”) in their individual capacities and official capacities as Colorado state legislators. GAG alleged that the Legislators violated their First Amendment rights by promulgating and enforcing rules of decorum that barred misgendering and deadnaming in legislative hearings.