Michael Karlik
LightNews LightNews
banner
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
Michael Karlik
@michaelkarlik.bsky.social
1K followers 490 following 690 posts
Judicial reporter at coloradopolitics.com and gazette.com. Shining a light on the work of our state and federal judges. Plus, full-time bird caretaker.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
Michael Karlik @michaelkarlik.bsky.social · Feb 2
During the first Trump term, I released an 8-episode podcast chronicling a small Ohio city where a group of political dissidents took control of the council, drove out the longtime Democratic mayor, and governed chaotically. This seems like a good time to resurface it:
tearitdownpodcast.substack.com
Tear It Down | Substack
A small group of outsiders wanted to change their city for the better. So they got elected. And then the revenge began. Listen on iTunes: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&...
tearitdownpodcast.substack.com
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
Thankful for the dinosaur 🙏
Me with Phoebe, the cockatoo
November 27, 2025 at 10:45 PM
Reposted by Michael Karlik
mgoodland.bsky.social
Incredibly sad news: State Sen. Faith Winter, 45, died in a multi-car accident on I-25 near Dry Creek this evening. All of us at Colorado Politics mourn with her family, friends and those she served in Senate District 25. www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/26/c...
Colorado Sen. Faith Winter, 45, killed in car accident
State Sen. Faith Winter, D-Westminster, was killed in a car accident Wednesday evening on I-25. The accident took place near the intersection of I-25 and Dry Creek Ave., according to the Arapahoe Coun...
www.coloradopolitics.com
November 27, 2025 at 5:03 AM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
New developments in Colorado's 2 public judicial discipline cases:
-The nonlawyer panel member for Judge Sean Murphy's case was allegedly non-responsive, so she's been replaced
-Judge Ian MacLaren doesn't want his panel to follow "the spirit" of the old rules
www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/26/p...
Panel member ejected from one judge’s discipline case, as second judge challenges protocols in his proceeding
One member of a panel adjudicating the misconduct allegations against a county court judge has been replaced due to her alleged non-responsiveness, at the same time a different county court judge is o...
www.coloradopolitics.com
November 26, 2025 at 10:15 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
When Colorado lawmakers said that insurance companies need to provide notice and time to respond if a policyholder isn't cooperating with a claims investigation, did they really mean it? The Supreme Court is looking at the scope of failure-to-cooperate:
www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/26/c...
November 26, 2025 at 10:06 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
During oral arguments last week, Justice Will Hood slammed the government for arguing a defendant who requested a mental condition exam multiple times -- only for Colorado's mental hospital to never get it done -- bears the blame for not cooperating:
www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/25/c...
November 26, 2025 at 4:15 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
In its third opinion in the matter, Colorado's Court of Appeals confirmed once again that yes, an Alamosa County judge violated the public trial guarantee by closing his physical courtroom. And no, it can't be justified in retrospect. Therefore, new trial:
www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/25/a...
Appeals court, for third time, confirms new trial necessary for Alamosa County judge's public trial violation
Colorado's second-highest court confirmed for the third time last week that an Alamosa County judge violated a defendant's constitutional right to a public trial, which requires the reversal of his co...
www.coloradopolitics.com
November 26, 2025 at 4:13 PM
Reposted by Michael Karlik
mjsdc.bsky.social
When liberals secured a majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2023, they changed internal procedures—over the objection of the conservative chief justice, who claimed they were taking away her power. Today the justices released MESSY details about the affair...
www.wicourts.gov/sc/rulhear/D...
BRIAN HAGEDORN, J. (concurring). The Wisconsin Supreme Court is composed of seven justices who are supposed to be members of the same team. Unlike trial courts, when we act, we do so collectively. To accomplish this, over the last 175 years, this court has established various practices and traditions, both formal and informal. These practices ensure all voices are heard, create clear lines of decision-making authority, and establish consistent and neutral processes to govern our case-deciding and administrative work. Some of these are reflected in formally adopted Supreme Court Rules, and some in our Internal Operating Procedures. But the true currency of a court like ours is trust. When trust is broken like it has been here, every aspect of our work suffers. ¶2 This all began in the summer of 2023 when four justices wished to make significant changes to how this court functions. Fair enough. These modifications could have been pursued through a process built on collegiality and mutual respect. Instead, my colleagues pursued a more destructive path. ¶3 The morning our then-newest justice was sworn into office——August 1, 2023——my four colleagues at that time set off to reshape our court and the operation of the court system. They had apparently engaged in significant discussions in the months prior and decided to force through these changes during our summer recess, and to do so via email with or without the input of their other colleagues. They issued a press release triumphantly announcing that these changes were all about transparency, accountability, and inclusivity. This was true in the same way Pearl Harbor was a strike for peace in the Pacific. I will not rehash every detail (Justice Ziegler's excellent writing recounts much of the history), but the reader deserves a taste. ¶4 The first shot sounded when my four colleagues fired the Director of State Courts, who functions as the CEO of administrative matters for the entire judicial branch. Without following any established process, one of my colleagues sent an email proposing that we fire our Director and install a new, preselected interim Director in his place. This happened through email, over the course of two business days, while the Director was out of town on state business, during our summer recess. He never received a performance review indicating concerns; he was simply told his employment was over. This came just months after some of these same colleagues emphasized the importance of having all justices participate in hiring key staff. ¶5 Later that same week, my colleagues proposed dramatic changes via email affecting both our case-deciding and administrative responsibilities. The email invited justices to attend a new, unscheduled meeting of the court later that week to discuss the proposals. One justice said she could not be there; another objected to the meeting as outside our court calendar. The meeting would go forward no matter what, we were told. I implored my colleagues to reconsider, to treat their fellow colleagues with the respect they would want if circumstances were reversed. They refused. The meeting went on as expected, and with only four members present, they voted to fundamentally remake our court. ¶7 Among their changes, my colleagues radically altered the role of the chief justice. They created a new, three-person administrative committee (on which the chief justice would ostensibly sit) to take over nearly all of the chief justice's most important administrative duties. And they did so in the face of serious objections that these changes violated the Wisconsin Constitution, which says the chief justice "shall be the administrative head of the judicial system." Wis. Const. art. VII, § 4. One justice who in the past championed the constitutional role of the chief justice suddenly changed course. Again, these actions stripping the chief justice of powers she had exercised for as long as anyone could remember were proposed via email, and were voted on a few days later during an unscheduled meeting of just four justices during our summer recess. Not exactly transparent, accountable, and inclusive. ¶8 Another significant series of amendments to our internal rules involved modifying the way we consider certain kinds of cases, essentially making it much easier for this court to expedite cases coming to us outside the normal appeals process. Why the change? As everyone understood, my colleagues had the not-sosecret goal of swiftly hearing particular politically charged cases. This was all by design. ¶9 And how did this experiment go? Not well. Administratively, it was not clear who was in charge. We experienced significant breakdowns in communication amidst a lack of clarity about who was doing what. Our staff was often caught in the middle of a court that did not have established lines of communication and authority. And when the Director of State Courts was unceremoniously fired for what many perceived as political reasons, it sent a shockwave through the system. Furthermore, my colleagues' changes were not one and done. Throughout the past two years, they continued to modify the court's procedures in a similar ad-hoc fashion, often after realizing problems with their earlier ill-considered changes. This only added to the confusion. ¶10 Finally, at one of the court's internal conferences this past June, my colleagues shifted course. One of the four announced she was "withdrawing" her prior votes from the past two years (which, by the way, is not a thing) with the idea that every disputed change was now, all of a sudden, reversed. What changed? Again, it was no mystery. My colleagues wanted to take power away from then-Chief Justice Annette Ziegler. Such a move ensured that my colleagues would run the court through the administrative committee. Following the April 2025 election, they concluded they would have the votes to elect a chief justice of their choosing and have a block of votes to support her, so they no longer needed to seize those powers. This is not a cynical take. It is exactly what happened. ¶11 What's past is past, however. I have no desire to hold this against my colleagues, and I am grateful they have changed course. In fact, I was happy to work collaboratively on many operational changes reflected in this order, most of which I
November 25, 2025 at 8:32 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
ICYMI: Here's the full story about today's ruling by Senior Judge Brooke Jackson in Colorado, advancing a class action lawsuit over unlawful, warrantless immigration arrests.

www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/25/f...
November 26, 2025 at 5:52 AM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
Here is a brief write-up, with details to come:
www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/25/f...
November 25, 2025 at 8:23 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
BREAKING: Judge R. Brooke Jackson in Colorado has ordered the government to follow the law when performing warrantless immigration arrests. In addition to finding the government is engaging in violations, he has imposed documentation requirements to ensure compliance. Story to come.
Plaintiffs were not ICE targets. They were not the “worst of the worst.” But when encountered, often by happenstance, they were flagged as persons unlawfully present, minimally questioned (if at all), and arrested (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶55, 75, 100, 124). Their I-213 forms are devoid of evidence that the officer had the requisite probable cause to arrest them without a warrant (see infra Section IV.C.2). Despite its own proclaimed policies (Def. Ex. EG), ICE continues to engage to this day in the practice of arresting collaterals without inquiring into their flight risk or documenting any plausible reason to support their warrantless detention
November 25, 2025 at 8:20 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
Colorado's Supreme Court held a hearing about tweaks to the rules for attorney misconduct proceedings. But commenters wanted to address something that wasn't in the proposal: A way to hold lawyers professionally accountable for sexual misconduct at any time: www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/24/c...
November 25, 2025 at 4:37 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
An Arapahoe County judge gave a faulty self-defense instruction in a road rage murder case, prompting the Court of Appeals to order a new trial:
www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/24/a...
Appeals court overturns road rage murder conviction due to faulty jury instruction
Colorado's second-highest court overturned a defendant's murder conviction on Thursday, concluding an Arapahoe County judge provided an incorrect self-defense instruction to the jury about the road ra...
www.coloradopolitics.com
November 25, 2025 at 4:35 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
The Colorado Supreme Court heard arguments over a Court of Appeals decision that wiped away a $5.7 million award to a transit subcontractor and imposed a drastic consequence for public works contractors who exaggerate their money owed:
www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/25/c...
Colorado justices consider whether to restore $5.7 million award to RTD subcontractor
Members of the Colorado Supreme Court considered last week whether the Court of Appeals incorrectly threw out a $5.7 million award to a company that helped build a commuter rail line and, in doing so,...
www.coloradopolitics.com
November 25, 2025 at 4:34 PM
Reposted by Michael Karlik
ncrabbithole.com
"After federal immigration officers in Charlotte saw a man taking photos of them, they chased him nearly 2 miles down a main road and made plans to “smash” into him, video played in court Thursday showed. They broke his window, charged him with a federal felony and accused him of assaulting them."
ICE video shows officers planned to ‘smash’ into Charlotte man filming Border Patrol
Immigration agents had a 12-pack of Modelos in their car while making arrests, Miguel Angel Garcia Martinez told investigators.
www.charlotteobserver.com
November 21, 2025 at 8:40 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
A federal judge fined a lawyer $3,000 for including flawed case citations and being evasive when her opposing council called her on it. Although the lawyer blamed the mistake on her own carelessness, Judge Nina Wang pointed out the “hallmarks” of AI use:
www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/20/f...
Federal judge fines lawyer $3,000 for 'reckless' filings with incorrect info
A federal judge took the unusual step last week of fining an attorney $3,000 for submitting flawed case citations, being evasive when her opposing counsel raised concerns and relying on cases that did...
www.coloradopolitics.com
November 21, 2025 at 8:00 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
The Colorado Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to a defendant’s argument that an El Paso County prosecutor pursued an unjustified mid-case appeal, pushing her trial beyond the state’s speedy trial deadline and requiring dismissal of the charges:
www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/20/c...
Colorado justices sympathetic to defendant's claim of speedy trial violation
Members of the Colorado Supreme Court appeared sympathetic on Wednesday to the argument that an El Paso County prosecutor made an unjustified decision to file a mid-case appeal, pushing the trial beyo...
www.coloradopolitics.com
November 21, 2025 at 6:38 PM
Reposted by Michael Karlik
ndhapple.bsky.social
My "I'm not allowed to say what the career staff recommended" t-shirt is raising a lot of questions answered by my "I'm not allowed to say what the career staff recommended" t-shirt
kyledcheney.bsky.social Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney.bsky.social · 8d
BREAKING: Prosecutors in the Comey case just told the judge that they’re under orders from the Deputy Attorney Generals’s office not to disclose whether career prosecutors wrote a memo recommending *against* indicting Comey prior to Halligan going to the grand jury.
November 19, 2025 at 4:24 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
NEW: Judge Gina Rodriguez said she had no reason to believe the federal government won't follow her orders "under normal circumstances." For now, she'll only consider a declaratory judgment about the rights of detained noncitizens, rather than something more:
www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/20/f...
November 20, 2025 at 9:28 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
Colorado's Court of Appeals believed traffic signals aren't "conflicting" if one direction is dark and the other direction is functional, reasoning that drivers can logically figure it out. But the Supreme Court doesn't seem to buy that technicality:
www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/19/c...
Colorado justices skeptical that Colorado Springs is immune for crash caused by faulty signal
Members of the Colorado Supreme Court seemed doubtful on Wednesday that the city of Colorado Springs cannot be sued over a collision that occurred as a result of traffic lights that were functioning n...
www.coloradopolitics.com
November 20, 2025 at 6:05 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
The Colorado Supreme Court seems receptive to the idea that lawyers can borrow allegations from other litigation for use in their complaints, provided that there is some investigation into the assertions made:
www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/19/c...
Colorado justices receptive to allowing lawyers to 'borrow' allegations from elsewhere
Members of the Colorado Supreme Court seemed open on Tuesday to the idea that plaintiffs' lawyers can use allegations made elsewhere to bolster their own clients' claims, so long as the attorney first...
www.coloradopolitics.com
November 20, 2025 at 6:02 PM
Reposted by Michael Karlik
cingraham.bsky.social
I always kind of assumed this was happening but never thought anyone would be dumb enough to spell it out in an email!
November 20, 2025 at 1:48 PM
Reposted by Michael Karlik
golikehellmachine.com
we are returning to the state in which the framers intended for the legislature, in which the lower chamber and the upper chamber absolutely despise one another
jamiedupree.bsky.social Jamie Dupree @jamiedupree.bsky.social · 8d
The House has voted unanimously to repeal the provisions in the shutdown package which allow GOP Senators to sue the federal government and get as much as $1 million in damages - because the feds looked at their phone records in the Jan. 6 investigation.
November 20, 2025 at 2:54 AM
Reposted by Michael Karlik
fishnette.bsky.social
#copolitics campaign finance decision a long time coming: this Colorado Supremes case is originally from 2020. Since then: a new law with specific percentages on nonprofit spending on ballot measures. Unite for Colorado changed its name to Advance Colorado Action. via @michaelkarlik.bsky.social
Colorado justices weigh disclosure requirements for ballot initiative spending
Members of the Colorado Supreme Court considered on Tuesday whether an organization that spent $4 million to advocate for ballot initiatives in the 2020 election was required to disclose its donors an...
www.coloradopolitics.com
November 19, 2025 at 3:46 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
Colorado lawmakers may have passed a partially unconstitutional law by providing that judges' anti-SLAPP orders go to the Court of Appeals. Yesterday, the Colorado Supreme Court suggested that may work sometimes, but not for certain county court decisions:
www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/18/c...
Colorado justices address conflict between anti-SLAPP law, state constitution
Colorado lawmakers in 2019 created a mechanism to quickly dispose of lawsuits over conduct that implicates a person's First Amendment rights, specifically the rights to free speech and to petition the...
www.coloradopolitics.com
November 19, 2025 at 8:19 PM
michaelkarlik.bsky.social
The Colorado Supreme Court may intervene in 4 cases about:
-testimony contextualizing parent-child violence
-whether a judge should've accepted a jury's partial acquittal verdict
-eminent domain for a water pipeline
-a mental health eval for a fender-bender
www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/11/17/c...
Colorado Supreme Court signals intervention in 4 ongoing cases
The Colorado Supreme Court signaled recently that it may intervene in four cases in the trial courts, two of which are criminal and two are civil.
www.coloradopolitics.com
November 19, 2025 at 12:46 AM