U.S. District Court Judge Philip A. Brimmer issued the order on Nov. 6, concluding that the Board of Regents functions as a legislative body and that its members are therefore entitled to immunity for actions taken in that capacity. The case is James v. Rennison et al.

James, who has represented Colorado's 1st Congressional District on the board since 2023, sued her colleagues after the board voted 7-1 last summer to censure her. The sanctions removed her from committee assignments and rescinded invitations to university events that regents attend in their official capacities. James alleged the actions violated her First Amendment rights and, because she is Black, her equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The dispute stemmed from James' criticism of a THC education campaign produced by the university's school of public health, which she described as racist. An investigation found that she may have worked to revoke funding from the program behind the campaign. James, an entrepreneur in the marijuana industry, denied responsibility for any funding decisions in her legal filings.

In her May statement submitted to the court, James wrote that the sanctions "prevented me from doing my job as a regent, stripped me of the privileges of my office, and punished me." She added that committee assignments are "the primary mechanism through which individual regents exercise the decisional authority of the office," giving regents influence over university budgets, academic affairs, governance policies, and executive decisions.

The regents' attorneys argued that the board is "a quintessentially legislative body" whose members are elected and whose main function is to "enact laws for the government of the university." They contended that immunity applies even when a member is cut off from funding and resources, or expelled entirely.

James' lawyers countered that the regents act as administrators, not legislators, and that the sanctions were "an administrative act of punishment, not a legislative act." They noted that the sanctions resolution governed the conduct of no one but James and did not recite any budgetary or rule-making function.

Brimmer acknowledged that sanctioning James was not an act of policymaking, but he found that the regents acted after determining she had violated her duties, including by moving to rescind school funding. The requirement that regents control university appropriations "would be diminished if regents could not enforce internal policies prohibiting a regent from acting contrary to the financial interests of the University of Colorado," he wrote. The prospective implications of the sanctions therefore related to the board's legislative power, weighing in favor of immunity.

In his order, Brimmer wrote that legislative immunity does not turn "on the official's motive or intent," making it irrelevant whether the regents censured James for actual violations of her duties or as a pretext for discriminatory reasons.

CU Board of Regents Chair Ken Montera said in a statement that the judge "permanently dismissed the suit and it can't be refiled." He added, "We will continue with our work on behalf of CU and the people of Colorado."

Attorneys for James did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The dismissal closes a legal challenge that had raised questions about the boundaries of free speech and internal governance at one of the state's largest public institutions. The ruling affirms that regents, as elected officials with legislative functions, are broadly protected from civil liability for decisions made in their official capacity, even when those decisions carry significant consequences for an individual member.