People v. Camp signals hope for Colorado housing reforms

A case about criminal sentencing may be the key to enforcing statewide zoning reforms.

Late December Colorado housing advocates won a victory in  an unexpected place: a criminal court decision by the state supreme court. Following the logic of that decision, state courts should find that housing reforms are not only good policy; they are supported by well-established legal principles. That case was about sentences from criminal offenses, but the same principle applies to housing. The state is embroiled in an ongoing legal battle over housing reforms; in Greenwood Village et al v. State of Colorado, affluent municipalities have sued to get out of their obligations to implement state law to allow for more housing, raising the question of who controls their land use decisions.

The unanimous ruling in People v. Camp reinforces existing precedent, holding that “[w]hen a regulatory issue is of mixed [state and local] concern, state law preempts a conflicting local regulation.” That case was about sentencing from criminal offenses, but the same principle applies to housing. If the court applies the same analysis in the same way, the state will win its fight to enact responsible housing reforms.

Westminster and Aurora, Colorado are two of several home rule cities suing the state in the hope that they can excuse themselves from statewide housing reforms. But both cities also lost People v. Camp with the near-identical argument that home rule status is a magic wand that allows a city to ignore any and all laws that apply uniformly to the rest of the state. 

In May 2025, they sued the state to stop the enforcement of laws that require upzoning near transit and eliminated parking minimums, trying to keep a firm grasp on their ability to exclude affordable housing. But as the ruling in People v. Camp attests, home rule status is no excuse from laws of general applicability around the state.

The Camp decision revolved around different sentences for the same crime. In 2021, the Misdemeanor Reform Act simplified sentencing levels for non-felony crimes. For example, under state law an individual charged with theft of under $300 would have been sentenced to a maximum of 10 days’ imprisonment, up to a $300 fine, or both. In Westminster, the same crime would carry a penalty of 364 days in prison, a maximum $2,650 fine, or both. That means that  a person could be convicted of the same crime in two places, but face drastically different sentences purely based on the matter of their location. The Court rightly found that this inconsistency would create “a patchwork of local and state rules contrary to the state legislation’s wording and intent.”

Under Colorado law, state law preempts, or overrides, local law if the law relates to a matter of state concern, or mixed state and local concern. Local governments can decide purely local matters, like residency requirements for local government workers. As the court explained:

State law preempts a local law when the effectuation of the local interest materially impedes the state’s interest. A local ordinance that authorizes what state law forbids or that forbids what state law authorizes will necessarily satisfy this standard. 

Home rule municipalities receive many exceptions but are not free to carve themselves out of laws that the state needs to be uniform. A regulation is preempted by the state if that preemption is express, implied, or operational. Implied preemption occurs when the interest is implied by reason of a dominant state interest, and operational preemption occurs when the effect of a local rule impedes or destroys a state interest. The state will “expressly preempt a local ordinance if the legislature clearly and unequivocally states its intent to prohibit a local government from exercising its authority over the subject matter at issue.”

The court found that sentencing preemption was merely operational, as the effect of local criminal sentencing laws would conflict with statewide regulations. The preemption question is even easier for housing laws, in fact, because the General Assembly was quite explicit in its 2024 housing reforms, which included language talking about the lack of housing availability and the need for statewide leadership.

Colorado has a four part analysis to determine if a matter is purely local or of mixed state and local concern. The test reviews the need for uniform regulations, the impact on residents of other municipalities, the history of the regulation, and the text of the state constitution.

The first criterion under that test is the need for statewide regulatory uniformity. The Camp decision explained that “although uniformity in itself is no virtue, it is necessary when it achieves and maintains specific state goals.” Just as the court disapproved of inconsistent sentencing laws, it would likely conclude that inconsistent housing laws would place unequal pressures on different communities, and violate the state’s explicit interest in addressing housing affordability.

The second criteria is the impact of the measure on individuals living outside the municipality. A local regulation can have an extraterritorial impact when the ordinance has “a ripple effect impacting state residents outside the municipality.” Just as criminal sentences influence the rate and effect of crime on different municipalities, housing availability strains communities that need to support workers, travelers, and commuters  who work or spend time in an area where they can’t afford to live.

The third test considers whether the subject matter is traditionally governed by state or local government. Both state and local governments have historically had criminal laws. Similarly, state laws have already conflicted with and won out over local land use rules, specifically including conflicting regulations controlling housing for children in government care, discriminating against condominiums, and allowance of fracking were all found to be matters of mixed state and local concern.

The final question is whether the Colorado constitution specifically commits the particular matter to state or local regulation. Under the state constitution, both state and local governments can regulate non-felony offenses. While the General Assembly has chosen to delegate much of its authority over land use, the state constitution nonetheless grants that power to state officials. The 2024 housing reforms were a few examples where the state decided to proactively use its authority. Moreover, the Court clarified that announcements by the General Assembly instruct the analysis, and lend weight to the consideration that a matter is not purely local. Both the GA and the governor have been quite clear about their intent to take direct control over zoning issues.

By every metric the court considered in People v. Camp, the state stands to win against home rule cities on housing reform. Not only is more housing better from a normative standpoint, the court was very clear in the Camp ruling: when there's a conflict like this between the state and some of the cities, the state laws are the ones that win. Considering the practical effect of housing decisions and the General Assembly’s explicit declarations, it’s clear that a pro-housing ruling would be the right one. Good policy and a reading of existing law make clear that Colorado should receive a decision that respects statewide housing reform.