June 2, 2025 • 8 mins
A LAWSUIT HAS BEEN FILED OVER HB25-1312 And I'm talking to Suzanne Beecher from the Alliance Defending Freedom on the suit that has been filed on behalf of XX-XY sportswear over the free speech restrictions in the bill which prevent someone from calling a man a man or a woman a woman if they are trans. Suzanne joins me at 1. Find out more about ADF or even make a donation by clicking here.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's a lawsuit, and this particular lawsuit is directed at
HB twenty five Dash thirteen twelve, a law that couches
itself as a trans write bill. But in reality, the
way I view it and other many other people view it,
is that it's an attack on free speech. And joining
me now from the Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Suzanne
(00:20):
Beecher to talk about the lawsuit that's been filed on
behalf of sportswear company XXXY. Suzanne, welcome the show. First
of all, well, yeah, so tell me a little bit
about the lawsuit and what's in it, specifically what you
guys are arguing about this House bill.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Yeah. So Colorado is in this case once again censoring
the speech of its citizens and trying to force them
to instead speak the state's message. So, in this case,
Alliance Defending Freedom represents XXXY Athletics in challenging a recently
past Colorado law that infringes on the free speech rights
of businesses. Those who aren't familiar with XXXY, it's an
(01:02):
athletic retailer that's based in Colorado, and it was founded
in response to the increase in the number of males
who were competing in and often displacing female athletes in
their own sports, so consistent with its mission to protect
women's sports, it's the practice OFXXY to refer to males
who identify as female, including males competing in women's sports,
(01:25):
using biologically accurate pronouns and given names. But under Colorado's law,
they're prohibited from doing this. This is a clear First
Amendment violation. So ADF is representing XXXY and challenging this law.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
I have to ask this question, because this was the
first thing that popped into my head about this lawsuit.
Do you have to wait to be damaged before you sue?
Because this is a preemptive strike. Could the judges look
at this and say, well, you haven't been harmed. You know,
there's no demonstration of harm here. How does that process work?
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Yeah, So, particularly in the area of constitutional violation like
threats to free speech, if it's clear that the law
applies to the plaintiff, the person or entity challenging the
regulation or the law, then they're allowed to bring it
before they've actually been harmed. Okay, So that's like you said,
this is a pre enforcement channel. So that's what's happening
(02:18):
because they fall squarely and their speech falls squarely into
what's being regulated by the law.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
What are some of the potential penalties that XXXY Athletics
could face if they chose to continue? And I love
their advertising, I think it's amazing, but they do call
boys and girls sports boys. What kind of penalties could
they face if they continue without kind of advertising? In Colorado?
Speaker 2 (02:41):
The penalties for violing this law are steep, so they
are up to thirty five hundred dollars per violation in
addition to civil and potentially criminal penalties. So this is
a clear First Amendment issue. Americans should be free to
speak the truth on biological reality, and here Colorado is
censoring xxxife from expressing a message that's central to its mission.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
And this is I'm going to ask you a tactic,
and you can tell me that you don't want to
talk about your tactics right now. But are we going
to hear an argument about biological sex being biological sex?
I mean, is that going to make it into the case.
Are we going to get to a point where we
have to demonstrate that they're only speaking the truth?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
So I think in this case that's not even what
the court really needs to look at. In this case,
what we're seeing is viewpoint and content based restrictions on speech,
which is a clear First Amendment violation. Like this is
where speech is at its most protected, and the reason
for this is that, as we know, free speech is
crucial to a healthy society, and so particularly in this case,
(03:50):
when they're silencing one side of a debate that's at
the center of public discourse, in the center of public debate,
that's the issue here, is that they're silencing a viewpoint
because they disfavor it. And then even more, they're trying
to compel businesses like xxxy to express a viewpoint that
they disagree with and that cannot be countenance under the
(04:11):
First Amendment.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
So what is the expected out Not expected, but what
is the desired outcome? Do you wish to have the
entire law thrown out? What does that look like if
you win?
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Yeah, so here we would be hopeful that businesses like
XXXY would not be forced to speak a message contrary
to there so forced to use names and pronouns to
refer to people in a way that's not biologically accurate.
So yeah, we would hope that not just our client,
but that no businesses or individuals in Colorado would be
forced to have their free speech violated like that, I don't.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Have a lot of confidence and I'm not asking you
to weigh in on this because you're going to probably
be in front of them. The Colorado Supreme Court is
known for issuing hot garbage rulings in my opinion, when
it comes to things like this, is this a case
that we could potentially see end up in the US
Supreme Court or is this the law?
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Yeah, it certainly would not be unprecedented. So ADF has
actually represented just in the last decade two clients out
of Colorado in free speech challenges to Colorado's laws, actually
to the same cod of the Colorado Anti Discrimination Act,
and both clients have won at the Supreme Court. So
one was three oh three Creative, which was a challenge
(05:29):
to a Colorado law that would require website designer Laurie
Smith to custom design websites that expressed messages that were
in violation of her belief. So in that case, the
Supreme Court ruled for Laurie and said that the Colorado
law was a violation of the First Amendment. So we're
hopeful that in this case, if it were to go
all the way up that there would again be a
victory for free speech.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
The thing that's a little bit different with this case
over the three to three website case or the Jack
Phillips case. There's not really a religious component to this case.
Xxx Y is a business. They are not in a
religious business. They're just a business. So does that make
it easier or harder or the same.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
So I think in this case, like you're saying, there's
not the additional religious claim, which is you know, another
clause at the first Amendment. But because the violation here
is silencing viewpoints and compelling speech, really the free speech
thing is the clearer harm here, that's the clearer constitutional violation.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
I know that this was recently filed, but what kind
of timeline are we looking at when because I'll be
following this very very closely, what kind of timeline are
we looking at before we'll have any kind of motion
forward on this? Or is there a trial timeline, what's
the what's what comes next?
Speaker 2 (06:45):
So litigation timelines are of course notoriously hard to predict,
So I think it's hard to say, but what we
could be hopeful for is is potentially an earlier ruling
that would protect the free speech rights, you know, finding
that these the clients are likely to prevail because their
rights are clearly violated by the law. So it's hard
(07:06):
to say. We'll have to see just how the timeline unfolds,
but we're optimistic that the courts will find for free
speech and we'll protect the rights of xxx Y and
other Colorado businesses to speak biological reality and to speak
consistently with their mission.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
I think the word we're looking for is speak freely,
speaking freely. Suzanne Beacher, she's with the Alliance for Defending Freedom.
If you're not familiar with their work, I put a
link to their website today because they are doing an
incredible job going full at some of the stupidest laws
out there that do things like infringe our freedoms, infringe
our free speech, all of this stuff. If you'd like
(07:44):
to make a donation, I put a link there as well.
Suzanne will be watching this and hopefully we'll be able
to have you back on for an update in the
near future.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Thank you so much. Great talking to you all right.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
That is Suzanne Beacher with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a wonderful,
wonderful organization.
It's a lawsuit, and this particular lawsuit is directed at
HB twenty five Dash thirteen twelve, a law that couches
itself as a trans write bill. But in reality, the
way I view it and other many other people view it,
is that it's an attack on free speech. And joining
me now from the Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Suzanne
(00:20):
Beecher to talk about the lawsuit that's been filed on
behalf of sportswear company XXXY. Suzanne, welcome the show. First
of all, well, yeah, so tell me a little bit
about the lawsuit and what's in it, specifically what you
guys are arguing about this House bill.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Yeah. So Colorado is in this case once again censoring
the speech of its citizens and trying to force them
to instead speak the state's message. So, in this case,
Alliance Defending Freedom represents XXXY Athletics in challenging a recently
past Colorado law that infringes on the free speech rights
of businesses. Those who aren't familiar with XXXY, it's an
(01:02):
athletic retailer that's based in Colorado, and it was founded
in response to the increase in the number of males
who were competing in and often displacing female athletes in
their own sports, so consistent with its mission to protect
women's sports, it's the practice OFXXY to refer to males
who identify as female, including males competing in women's sports,
(01:25):
using biologically accurate pronouns and given names. But under Colorado's law,
they're prohibited from doing this. This is a clear First
Amendment violation. So ADF is representing XXXY and challenging this law.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
I have to ask this question, because this was the
first thing that popped into my head about this lawsuit.
Do you have to wait to be damaged before you sue?
Because this is a preemptive strike. Could the judges look
at this and say, well, you haven't been harmed. You know,
there's no demonstration of harm here. How does that process work?
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Yeah, So, particularly in the area of constitutional violation like
threats to free speech, if it's clear that the law
applies to the plaintiff, the person or entity challenging the
regulation or the law, then they're allowed to bring it
before they've actually been harmed. Okay, So that's like you said,
this is a pre enforcement channel. So that's what's happening
(02:18):
because they fall squarely and their speech falls squarely into
what's being regulated by the law.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
What are some of the potential penalties that XXXY Athletics
could face if they chose to continue? And I love
their advertising, I think it's amazing, but they do call
boys and girls sports boys. What kind of penalties could
they face if they continue without kind of advertising? In Colorado?
Speaker 2 (02:41):
The penalties for violing this law are steep, so they
are up to thirty five hundred dollars per violation in
addition to civil and potentially criminal penalties. So this is
a clear First Amendment issue. Americans should be free to
speak the truth on biological reality, and here Colorado is
censoring xxxife from expressing a message that's central to its mission.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
And this is I'm going to ask you a tactic,
and you can tell me that you don't want to
talk about your tactics right now. But are we going
to hear an argument about biological sex being biological sex?
I mean, is that going to make it into the case.
Are we going to get to a point where we
have to demonstrate that they're only speaking the truth?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
So I think in this case that's not even what
the court really needs to look at. In this case,
what we're seeing is viewpoint and content based restrictions on speech,
which is a clear First Amendment violation. Like this is
where speech is at its most protected, and the reason
for this is that, as we know, free speech is
crucial to a healthy society, and so particularly in this case,
(03:50):
when they're silencing one side of a debate that's at
the center of public discourse, in the center of public debate,
that's the issue here, is that they're silencing a viewpoint
because they disfavor it. And then even more, they're trying
to compel businesses like xxxy to express a viewpoint that
they disagree with and that cannot be countenance under the
(04:11):
First Amendment.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
So what is the expected out Not expected, but what
is the desired outcome? Do you wish to have the
entire law thrown out? What does that look like if
you win?
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Yeah, so here we would be hopeful that businesses like
XXXY would not be forced to speak a message contrary
to there so forced to use names and pronouns to
refer to people in a way that's not biologically accurate.
So yeah, we would hope that not just our client,
but that no businesses or individuals in Colorado would be
forced to have their free speech violated like that, I don't.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Have a lot of confidence and I'm not asking you
to weigh in on this because you're going to probably
be in front of them. The Colorado Supreme Court is
known for issuing hot garbage rulings in my opinion, when
it comes to things like this, is this a case
that we could potentially see end up in the US
Supreme Court or is this the law?
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Yeah, it certainly would not be unprecedented. So ADF has
actually represented just in the last decade two clients out
of Colorado in free speech challenges to Colorado's laws, actually
to the same cod of the Colorado Anti Discrimination Act,
and both clients have won at the Supreme Court. So
one was three oh three Creative, which was a challenge
(05:29):
to a Colorado law that would require website designer Laurie
Smith to custom design websites that expressed messages that were
in violation of her belief. So in that case, the
Supreme Court ruled for Laurie and said that the Colorado
law was a violation of the First Amendment. So we're
hopeful that in this case, if it were to go
all the way up that there would again be a
victory for free speech.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
The thing that's a little bit different with this case
over the three to three website case or the Jack
Phillips case. There's not really a religious component to this case.
Xxx Y is a business. They are not in a
religious business. They're just a business. So does that make
it easier or harder or the same.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
So I think in this case, like you're saying, there's
not the additional religious claim, which is you know, another
clause at the first Amendment. But because the violation here
is silencing viewpoints and compelling speech, really the free speech
thing is the clearer harm here, that's the clearer constitutional violation.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
I know that this was recently filed, but what kind
of timeline are we looking at when because I'll be
following this very very closely, what kind of timeline are
we looking at before we'll have any kind of motion
forward on this? Or is there a trial timeline, what's
the what's what comes next?
Speaker 2 (06:45):
So litigation timelines are of course notoriously hard to predict,
So I think it's hard to say, but what we
could be hopeful for is is potentially an earlier ruling
that would protect the free speech rights, you know, finding
that these the clients are likely to prevail because their
rights are clearly violated by the law. So it's hard
(07:06):
to say. We'll have to see just how the timeline unfolds,
but we're optimistic that the courts will find for free
speech and we'll protect the rights of xxx Y and
other Colorado businesses to speak biological reality and to speak
consistently with their mission.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
I think the word we're looking for is speak freely,
speaking freely. Suzanne Beacher, she's with the Alliance for Defending Freedom.
If you're not familiar with their work, I put a
link to their website today because they are doing an
incredible job going full at some of the stupidest laws
out there that do things like infringe our freedoms, infringe
our free speech, all of this stuff. If you'd like
(07:44):
to make a donation, I put a link there as well.
Suzanne will be watching this and hopefully we'll be able
to have you back on for an update in the
near future.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Thank you so much. Great talking to you all right.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
That is Suzanne Beacher with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a wonderful,
wonderful organization.
The Mandy Connell Podcast News
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com