Michael Karlik

@michaelkarlik.bsky.social

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.

Judge Gina Rodriguez of Colorado freed another noncitizen after immigration judge Bobbie Masters made the same error as before: misstating the evidence about the petitioner's criminal history. It is very unusual and perhaps telling that Judge Rodriguez is consistently naming these IJs.

Immigration Judge Masters focuses her analysis on Petitioner’s “multiple DUI 
arrests” and the dangers of drunk driving. Id. The Court recently reviewed a similar bond 
decision written by Immigration Judge Masters, where she utilized virtually identical 
reasoning: “The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored the manner 
in which people who drive under the influence of alcohol endanger the welfare of thecommunity, causing death and serious injury” and cited to several Supreme Court cases 
discussing the danger of drunk driving. Id. at 4. In that case, the Court noted that the 
record was “devoid of evidence as to when this event occurred—whether it was weeks, 
months or years ago—and whether any conviction was sustained as a result of the arrest.” 
A.A.G.R. v. Baltazar et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-2344-RMR, ECF No. 24, at 4 (D. Colo. July 
22, 2026). Here, the analysis of Petitioner’s record includes Petitioner’s DUI-related 
arrests. However, the only DUI conviction occurred in June 2021, and the remaining DUI 
cases are still pending. Again, the Court does not disagree with Immigration Judge Masters’ concern with drunk 
driving. However, based on the record before the Court, the support for the actual 
application of the clear and convincing standard is lacking. To be sure, the Bond Decision 
contains a list of the Petitioner’s prior criminal history. But the record does not include a 
recitation of the precise evidence Immigration Judge Masters deemed sufficient to satisfy 
the heavy burden of proving he is a danger to the community by clear and convincing 
evidence. “Indeed, not all criminal convictions conclusively establish that an alien 
presents a danger to the community, even where the crimes are serious enough to render 
the alien removable.” Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1206 (9th Cir. 2011). Petitioner’s most recent DUI conviction was in June 2021. In fact, Petitioner’s only arrest from within 
the last three years relates to a traffic offense and is still pending. A noncitizen’s criminal 
conduct “could have occurred years ago, and the alien could well have led an entirely 
law-abiding life since then.” Id. “In such cases, denial of bond on the basis of criminal
Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik.bsky.social · 5d ago

Colorado's federal judges have found immigration judge Bobbie Masters violated their orders in at least four cases. An ex-immigration attorney-turned ICE lawyer, Masters credited an error-riddled arrest form and dubious ICE narrative to deny one man bond: www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/07/31/f...

The Colorado Supreme Court will hear cases on: -the proper way to calculate parole eligibility when a new trial results in a sentence imposed retroactive to the original one -when the Court of Appeals should allow late-filed appeals due to lawyer carelessness www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/08/04/p...

Parole, appeals deadlines and restitution: Colorado justices accept cases

The Colorado Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will determine how a defendant’s parole eligibility date should be calculated in instances where a new trial results in a sentence being imposed ...

coloradopolitics.com

Judge Gordon Gallagher of Colorado brings the hammer down on the govt., saying he'll release two detained noncitizens if he doesn't get an update today: "It is unclear to the Court how, five days out from Petitioner's bond hearing, Respondents still do not know what the outcome of the hearing was."

ORDER: The Status Report (D. 11) indicates that Respondents are not in compliance with this Court's July 22, 2026, Order (D. 7) requiring Respondents to (1) provide a sufficient record of the bond hearing for review, (2) inform the Court whether Petitioner was granted bond, and if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial, and (3) provide a copy of a warrant justifying Petitioner's detention at the time he was detained. It is unclear to the Court how, five days out from Petitioner's bond hearing, Respondents still do not know what the outcome of the hearing was. Therefore, Respondents are ORDERED to come into compliance with the Court's previous Order by 4 pm today, August 4, 2026. Should they fail to do so, Petitioner SHALL be released by 7 pm, and Respondents SHALL provide a status update by 10 pm. by District Judge Gordon P Gallagher on 08/04/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (gpglc6, ) (Entered: 08/04/2026)ORDER: The Status Report (D. 10) indicates that Respondents are not in compliance with this Courts July 21, 2026, Order (D. 9) requiring Respondents to (1) provide a sufficient record of the bond hearing for review and (2) inform the Court of the reasons Petitioner was denied bond. Therefore, Respondents are ORDERED to come into compliance with the Courts previous Order by 4 pm today, August 4, 2026. Should they fail to do so, Petitioner SHALL be released by 7 pm, and Respondents SHALL provide a status update by 10 pm. by District Judge Gordon P Gallagher on 08/04/2026. Text Only Entry (gpglc6, ) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

The 10th Circuit upheld the federal prohibition on juveniles possessing handguns. The circuit didn't say where the juvenile prosecution arose, but practitioners said likely a tribal reservation. Colorado's US Attorney Office prosecutes <1 juvenile per year: www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/08/03/1...

10th Circuit upholds federal prohibition on juvenile handgun possession

The Denver-based federal appeals court concluded on Monday that Congress acted within its constitutional powers to make it a crime for juveniles to possess handguns in most instances.

coloradopolitics.com

Judge Gina Rodriguez of Colorado frees a man from immigration custody after finding that immigration judge Robyn Ross violated her order by applying the wrong burden of proof. Ross became an immigration judge in March after working for RFK Jr. for six years.

The Court ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner a bond hearing where “the
Government shall bear the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that
Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that his physical custody is
legally justified.” ECF No. 7 at 4. Immigration Judge Ross stated the clear and convincing
standard should be applied but instead applied the preponderance of the evidence
standard in determining Petitioner presents a risk of flight. The Court’s order clearly states
that the clear and convincing standard should be applied to either the flight risk or dangerto the community analysis. “To prove a fact by clear and convincing evidence is a heavy
burden that equates to showing the fact is ‘highly probable.’” Mejia v. Baltazar, No. 26-
CV-00385-NYW-TPO, 2026 WL 1361514, at *2 (D. Colo. May 15, 2026) (quoting United
States v. Dear, 104 F.4th 145, 147 (10th Cir. 2024)). Immigration Judge Ross effectively
admits that the fact Petitioner has an order of removal only satisfies the preponderance
of the evidence standard, not the heightened clear and convincing evidence standard.
Therefore, the Court agrees with Petitioner that Respondents did not satisfy their burden
of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk and, thus, his bond
hearing did not comply with the Court’s orders.

A highly unusual decision in a federal *juvenile* criminal appeal from the 10th Circuit. There's no indication of which court this originated from or which judge issued the underlying order, but the 10th Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the law prohibiting juveniles' possession of guns.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
 Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN DOE,
 Defendant - Appellant.
No. 26-9900
_________________________________
Before PHILLIPS, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
MORITZ, Circuit Judge.
_________________________________
John Doe appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss an information charging
him with juvenile delinquency for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(2), which prohibits
juvenile possession of a handgun. Doe argues that § 922(x)(2) exceeds Congress’s
power under the Commerce Clause. We hold that Congress had a rational basis to
conclude that regulating juvenile handgun possession is an essential part of a
comprehensive regulatory scheme outlined in § 922(x) that directly and substantially
affects interstate commerce. Congress also had a rational basis to conclude that this
regulatory scheme would be undercut if § 922(x)(2) were excised from the statute.
We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling that Congress possessed the authority
to enact § 922(x)(2).

Yesterday, Colorado's federal court used Red Rocks Amphitheater as the site of a naturalization ceremony for the first time. Almost 300 people became citizens, while regular folks went about their day exercising on the steps above them: www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/07/30/f...

First-ever Red Rocks naturalization ceremony draws most diverse group of new citizens

Colorado's federal trial court held its first-ever naturalization ceremony for nearly 300 new citizens on Thursday at Red Rocks Park and Amphitheater.

coloradopolitics.com

Judge Gina Rodriguez of Colorado once again orders a woman's immediate release because immigration judge Bobbie Masters once again violated her order to provide a bond hearing at which the government had the burden to prove flight risk or dangerousness.

Here, it is similarly unclear to the Court whether DHS’ evidence, standing alone,
satisfied its clear and convincing burden. The only piece of evidence Immigration Judge
Masters cited was the immigration judge’s written decision denying Petitioner’s EOIR 42b,
which was offered as rebuttal evidence by the Petitioner. During the bond hearing itself,
counsel for DHS did not reference or rely on the immigration judge’s written decision. ECF
No. 14-4 at 3. Therefore, the Court cannot determine whether DHS indeed satisfied its
burden. “To prove a fact by clear and convincing evidence is a heavy burden that equates
to showing the fact is ‘highly probable.’” Mejia v. Baltazar, No. 26-CV-00385-NYW-TPO, 2026 WL 1361514, at *2 (D. Colo. May 15, 2026) (quoting United States v. Dear, 104
F.4th 145, 147 (10th Cir. 2024)). The record is not clear as to whether DHS provided clear
and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger or flight risk. Therefore, the Court
Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik.bsky.social · 2w ago

Judge Gina Rodriguez of Colorado orders a man's immediate release from custody because immigration judge Bobbie Masters (once again) gave a deficient bond hearing. This time, she denied bond based on a DUI conviction -- when there was *no evidence he was ever convicted.*

Judge Gordon Gallagher of Colorado ordered a bond hearing yesterday for a detained noncitizen 1 day after being assigned to the case. A magistrate judge originally gave the govt. until today to respond, but Gallagher said it's clear what the outcome should be; govt. can dispute it later if it wants.

Because the primary legal dispute underlying the Petition appears resolved, the Court sees
no purpose in awaiting a response from Respondents prior to granting relief. See Santillan Quiroz,
2026 WL 1876709, at *17 n.13 (requiring “the district court must grant Santillan Quiroz’s petition
forthwith”). Should there be legal or factual issues not apparent from the Petition needing
resolution by the Court prior to providing a bond hearing, Respondents may file a Motion seeking
an extension or relief from this Order. See See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (“The return and all suggestions
made against it may be amended, by leave of court, before or after being filed.”); Yassine v. Collins,

Unrelatedly, Chief Judge Dan Domenico had this aside in his trial court order siding with the state. This seems like a weird personal view on an unrelated subject to inject into a decision -- but also I'm pretty sure he intended this as nothing more than a little levity.

not generally imposed on all goods and services. If Colorado were to pass 
a new fee on sales of plastic water bottles, for example, (as it has done 
with plastic grocery bags, much to my chagrin) Plaintiff’s statutory con
struction would require that this fee not apply to any plastic water bot
tles sold at airport locations. This would result in a strange state of af
Michael Karlik@michaelkarlik.bsky.social · last wk.

By 2-1, the 10th Circuit ruled that Colorado's $3-per-day charge on car rentals was actually a fee on customers, not on rental businesses. Therefore, it didn't run afoul of the federal law that generally prohibits charges on airport businesses: www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/07/27/d...