Allison Eid of Colorado is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. She was appointed by President Trump and replaced Neil Gorsuch. She previously served as an associate justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. Colorado Governor Bill Owens appointed her to the seat in 2006; she was later retained for a full term by the voters. Prior to her judicial service, Judge Eid served as Colorado’s solicitor general and as a law professor at the University of Colorado. Judge Eid attended the University of Chicago Law School, and she clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.
Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
The SCCC claimed that the Colorado Board of Regent’s policy prohibiting guns on campuses violated the Colorado Concealed Carry Act and the Colorado Constitution’s right to bear arms. Justice Eid’s majority opinion held that the act preempted the Board’s authority to regulate handguns on campus. Justice Eid then affirmed that the Students had stated a claim for relief and declined to consider the constitutional claim since affirmation was based on statutory grounds.
Coats v. Dish Network
Coats was terminated for the use of medical marijuana, which Colorado’s Medical Marijuana Amendment permitted. But using medical marijuana remains impermissible under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Justice Eid held that under the Supremacy Clause, an act that is unlawful under federal law cannot be deemed lawful under state law. As such, the court upheld the lower courts’ dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim.
Lucht’s Concrete Pumping v. Horner
In a case concerning the enforceability of a noncompete agreement, Justice Eid held that “an employer that forbears from terminating an existing at-will employee forbears from exercising a legal right, and that therefore such forbearance constitutes adequate consideration for a noncompetition agreement.”
People v. Shell
Shell appealed from an order holding her in contempt and fining her $6,000 for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The issue before the Colorado Supreme Court was whether Colorado’s ban on the unauthorized practice of law violated the First Amendment. Justice Eid and the Supreme Court held that the statute did not violate the First Amendment. According the court, the statute forbidding the unauthorized practice of law is directed at conduct, not speech.
Ingold v. Aimco/Bluffs, LLC Apartments
The Ingolds vacated their apartment after they developed health issues they believed were caused by mold and bacterial problems in their unit. The apartment owner withheld the Ingolds’ security deposit and demanded backrent. When the Ingolds sued for fraud and various torts, the apartment owner asserted that all claims must be arbitrated under the lease agreement. Justice Eid and Colorado Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause applied to all of the Ingolds’ claims, except for the alleged violation of the Security Deposits Act because that Act states that a tenant cannot be forced to arbitrate claims brought under it.
Schupper v. People of Colorado
Schupper was convicted of theft. While Schupper’s appeal was pending, the trial judge recused himself from four other criminal actions against Schwartz because of his personal friendship with a member of the prosecution. On remand, a successor judge determined that the trial judge’s recusal should retroactively apply to Schupper’s theft conviction. Justice Eid’s majority opinion held the trial judge’s friendship with a prosecutor did not require recusal because disqualification is only necessary when a judge possesses actual bias or exhibits the appearance of partiality, and neither applied to Schwartz.
Catholic Health Initiatives v. City of Pueblo
An en banc majority of the Colorado Supreme Court held that a Colorado town properly denied a tax exemption to a religious organization. Justice Eid dissented, arguing that the majority attempted to avoid what it erroneously believed to be an Establishment Clause violation and in the process squarely violated the Free Exercise Clause.
Qwest Servs. Corp. v. Blood
Justice Eid dissented from a majority opinion finding no procedural or substantive due process infirmity where a plaintiff won a substantial exemplary damages award after prevailing in a jury trial. Justice Eid argued that a due process violation occurred where the jury improperly considered post-injury evidence.
People v. Arapu
Justice Eid’s majority opinion for an en banc panel of the Colorado Supreme court delineates the scope of the independent source doctrine under federal and Colorado law.
Colo. Educ. Ass’n v. Rutt, 184 P.3d 65 (Colo. 2008)
Justice Eid’s dissent argues that salaries paid to union staff members to organize political campaign events does not fall within the federal or state “membership communication exception” to the use of segregated funds for political activity. In this case, the campaign events were not targeted solely to members and therefore did not fall within the Colorado statute’s express “membership communication exception.”