Del Toro v. Polis
U.S. District Court, District of Colorado · Docket 1:25-cv-02725 · Filed 2025-09-02
Pending — plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on Aug. 11, 2026 (entry 82); no ruling yet on the docket entries reviewed
Summary
Del Toro v. Polis is a federal civil-rights lawsuit filed September 2, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiffs are the Colorado State Shooting Association and seven individual Colorado residents. The defendants are Governor Jared Polis, Attorney General Philip Weiser, and Michael J. Allen, the district attorney for Colorado's 4th Judicial District. The complaint challenges SB25-003, the state law that requires an eligibility card, a waiting period, and an in-person course before a person may buy specified semiautomatic firearms, effective August 1, 2026. The plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Dispositive motions were filed and briefed through March 2026, and on August 11, 2026, ten days after the law took effect, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction asking the court to halt the eligibility-card requirement while the case proceeds. That motion attaches a sworn declaration from Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell stating his office is not participating in the program on cost grounds. As of the docket entries reviewed, the court has not ruled on the preliminary-injunction motion. This page tracks new filings as they are entered.
Challenge target
SB25-003 — the semiautomatic-firearm eligibility-card / permit-to-purchase requirement (C.R.S. Title 18, Art. 12), effective 2026-08-01
Parties
- Israel Del Toro — plaintiff
- Luke Sorensen — plaintiff
- Nathanael Skiver — plaintiff
- Laura Clellan — plaintiff
- Jason Reeves — plaintiff
- Garrett Flicker — plaintiff
- Kathleen Clayton — plaintiff
- Colorado State Shooting Association — plaintiff
- Jared Polis — defendant (Governor of Colorado)
- Philip J. Weiser — defendant (Colorado Attorney General)
- Michael J. Allen — defendant (District Attorney, 4th Judicial District)
Docket timeline
- 2026-08-11Motion ⚑entry 82
Docket entry 82: the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on August 11, 2026, ten days after SB25-003 took effect, asking the court to halt the eligibility-card requirement while the case proceeds. The motion argues the law's cumulative burden is incompatible with the Second Amendment and that the state "has not finished building" the administrative infrastructure the law depends on. Exhibits include a sworn declaration from Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell stating his office is not participating because it cannot afford the program's expected annual operating cost of over $400,000. The motion had not been ruled on as of the docket entries reviewed for this page.
- 2026-08-10Order ⚑entry 79
Docket entry 79: the court entered an order on August 10, 2026, the day before the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction (entry 82). This entry characterizes the CourtListener docket description only; see the linked docket for what the order resolved.
- 2026-05-08Filingentry 67
Docket entry 67: defendant Michael J. Allen filed an answer to the amended complaint (entry 33) on May 8, 2026, rather than a further dispositive motion.
- 2026-03-20Order ⚑entry 57
Docket entry 57: the court entered an order on March 20, 2026, roughly two weeks after the motions to dismiss at entries 50 and 51 were filed. See the linked docket for what the order resolved.
- 2026-03-03Motionentry 51
Docket entry 51: a second defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 3, 2026, the same day as entry 50.
- 2026-03-03Motionentry 50
Docket entry 50: a defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 3, 2026.
- 2026-01-20Filingentry 40
Docket entry 40: a memorandum was filed on January 20, 2026. See the linked docket entry for the filing party and subject.
- 2025-12-22Filingentry 33
Docket entry 33: the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 22, 2025, superseding the original complaint (entry 1). See the linked docket entry for what changed.
- 2025-12-22Order ⚑entry 32
Docket entry 32: the court entered an order on December 22, 2025, the same day the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (entry 33). See the linked docket for what the order resolved.
- 2025-12-12Filingentry 28
Docket entry 28: a memorandum was filed on December 12, 2025, during the pending motion-to-dismiss briefing. See the linked docket entry for the filing party and subject.
- 2025-12-01Order ⚑entry 445731152
On 2025-12-01, the docket in Del Toro v. Polis recorded a court order (entry 445731152): Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. This entry characterizes the CourtListener docket description only; it does not predict an outcome or offer legal analysis.
- 2025-12-01Motionentry 25
Docket entry 25: a defendant filed a motion to dismiss on December 1, 2025. The motion had not been ruled on as of the docket entries reviewed for this page.
- 2025-10-06Order ⚑entry 440066880
On 2025-10-06, the docket in Del Toro v. Polis recorded a court order (entry 440066880): Order on Motion to Continue. This entry characterizes the CourtListener docket description only; it does not predict an outcome or offer legal analysis.
- 2025-10-06Filingentry 440057590
On 2025-10-06, the docket in Del Toro v. Polis recorded a filing (entry 440057590): Memorandum. This entry characterizes the CourtListener docket description only; it does not predict an outcome or offer legal analysis.
- 2025-10-06Filingentry 13
Docket entry 13: a memorandum was filed on October 6, 2025. CourtListener's public entry description labels it only "Memorandum"; see the linked docket entry for which party filed it and its subject.
- 2025-09-04Order ⚑entry 6
Docket entry 6: the court entered an order on September 4, 2025, two days after the complaint was filed. CourtListener's public entry description does not specify the order's subject beyond the label "Order"; see the linked docket for the underlying document.
- 2025-09-02Filingentry 1
Docket entry 1: the plaintiffs filed the complaint commencing this action on September 2, 2025. It names the Colorado State Shooting Association and seven individuals as plaintiffs and challenges SB25-003. No ruling on the merits has been entered.