Filed Date: June 21, 2012
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On June 21, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed this action against the town of Colorado City, Arizona, the city of Hildale, Utah, and the utilities serving them. The three-count complaint alleged violations of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. § 14141), Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601), and Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000b). The DOJ sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the municipalities had unconstitutionally established a religion, and denied equal protection of the laws and use of public facilities on the basis of religion. Specifically, the DOJ alleged that the municipalities had become arms of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ("FLDS") and had failed their duty to provide policing, housing, and utilities to non-members and former members of the FLDS. This was the DOJ's first lawsuit to include claims under both the Fair Housing Act and § 14141, the federal statute that allows the Attorney General to address patterns or practices of police misconduct.
A religious and charitable trust called the United Effort Plan Trust (UEP Trust) owned much of the land in Colorado City and in Hildale, and was controlled until 2005 by the FLDS. Because a Utah court determined that the UEP Trust had violated its legal duties to the beneficiaries of the trust, the FLDS was removed as trustee, and a Special Fiduciary, not affiliated with the FLDS, was appointed in 2005. The Special Fiduciary's repeated attempts to administer the trust for the benefit of non-FLDS and FLDS members alike were rebuffed by the Marshall's Office of the two municipalities. The legal rulings relating to property agreements had been ignored, and the Marshall's office began occupying UEP Trust land.
The DOJ alleged that the Marshall's Office refused to arrest FLDS members accused of assaulting or committing crimes against non-FLDS members and also that the office arrested non-FLDS members without cause. The Marshall's Office was also accused of assisting in illegal evictions of non-FLDS members from UEP Trust-owned property, and of taking non-FLDS members' property without cause.
With respect to the municipal utilities implicated in the lawsuit, the DOJ alleged that water and electric service had been outright denied or unreasonably delayed to non-FLDS members. The DOJ found that some residents had been waiting on water or electric service since 2009.
Lastly, the municipalities were accused of denying non-FLDS members access to public parks and the city zoo. The Marshall's Office was accused of threatening non-FLDS members with arrest if they played in or otherwise used the park or zoo.
The case was assigned to District Judge H. Russel Holland. Three weeks after filing the complaint, the DOJ moved to transfer the matter to Judge James A. Teilbog, suggesting that the case was related to the ongoing matter of Cooke v. Colorado City, 3:10-cv-8105-PCT-JAT, which was pending before Judge Teilbog. Judge Teilbog denied the motion, which was filed in Cooke, because the DOJ's case might include factual and legal issues distinct from Cooke and because the cases were in different stages of litigation.
The Hildale defendants filed a motion to dismiss in August 2012. Judge Holland issued an order on November 29, 2012, in which he denied the motion as to the government’s first two claims but dismissed the Civil Rights Act claim, with leave to amend. 2012 WL 12842256.
On December 10, 2012, the Judge Holland denied the defendants' motion for an order changing venue from the District of Arizona to the District of Utah. Considering the availability of witnesses, the burdens on the witnesses and the parties, the interest of justice, and the plaintiffs' preference for remaining in the District of Arizona, the court held that a transfer of venue was not appropriate. 2012 WL 12929901.
In March 2013, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending the statute of limitations precluded the DOJ's Fair Housing Act claim. Judge Holland denied the motion on June 6, 2013, holding that the statutory period did not begin until a plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe the defendants had engaged in a practice of housing discrimination--the timing of that clock-starting point had yet to be determined.
The parties then engaged in extensive and contentious discovery. The court issued many rulings from 2013 to 2015 regarding evidence, including sanctions against the defendants for spoliation of evidence on July 28, 2014. 2014 WL 3724232.
In late 2014, the defendants moved for summary judgment regarding damages and the DOJ moved for partial summary judgment. On June 17, 2015, Judge Holland denied the DOJ's motion for partial summary judgment and granted in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. He held that the DOJ was precluded from requesting FHA damages from any defendant on behalf of the aggrieved persons, should the DOJ prevail on its FHA claims in Count II. Judge Holland also dismissed the DOJ's claims against the power company. The defendants' motions were otherwise denied.
The case proceeded to a jury trial in January 2016, which lasted for a total of 25 days. On March 7, 2016, the jury returned a verdict finding that the towns of Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah, and their joint water company systematically discriminated against individuals who were not FLDS members in the provision of housing, utility and policing services in violation of the FHA.
The jury also issued an advisory verdict on the DOJ's claims under Section 14141 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Because this statute (in contrast to the FHA) did not include a right to a jury trial, the jury’s verdict as to the Section 14141 claim was advisory and not binding. In its advisory verdict, the jury found that the Marshal’s Office operated as an arm of the FLDS church in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment; engaged in discriminatory policing in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the establishment clause; and subjected individuals to unlawful stops, seizures and arrests in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Because these advisory findings were not binding, the Section 14141 claim remained under consideration by the district court. The court scheduled a non-jury evidentiary hearing for October 24, 2016, regarding the Section 14141 claim.
On April 18, 2016, the parties filed a settlement agreement under which the defendants would pay $1.6 million to resolve the monetary claim under the FHA. The settlement agreement memorialized the settlement terms reached by the parties and presented to and approved by the court on March 7, 2016. The court issued an order officially approving the settlement agreement on April 19, 2016.
An evidentiary hearing was held between October 24-27, 2016, addressing the U.S.'s request for injunctive relief based on the FHA violations and the jury's advisory findings with respect to policing. After receiving comments under seal from the parties about simplifying and facilitating implementation of injunctive relief, Judge Holland issued a Judgment and Decree Granting Injunctive Relief on April 18, 2017. The Court permanently enjoined the defendants from engaging in any conduct violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Regarding policing practices, the Court required the defendants to hire a professional consultant in the field of policing; develop new policies and procedures for hiring new officers; conduct a wide-ranging search for candidates to fill two police officer positions (to be filled within six months); implement new policies and procedures for internal affairs investigations; conduct a comprehensive review of all Marshal’s Office policies and procedures; purchase body cameras for Marshal’s Office officers and implement a pilot program for their use; provide annual training to officers on the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, state and federal Fair Housing Acts, landlord/tenant law, and trespass law; and hire a Mentor for the Chief Marshal.
Regarding fair housing practices, the Court enjoined defendants from violating the FHA. Specifically, the injunction prohibited the defendants from making housing unavailable or denying housing opportunities to individuals because of their religion; discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of housing rentals or sales; or coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with a person in the exercise or enjoyment of a right granted by the FHA.
Additionally, the Court called for the renewed discussions between the UEP Trust and Colorado City regarding approval of a subdivision plat; development of objective, uniform, and non-discriminatory policies and procedures to govern the operation of the defendants' building departments; amendments to the defendants' water services regulations; review of the defendants' culinary water impact fee; the development of publicly available internet websites for each municipality; in-person training on the requirements of this injunction and the policies, procedures, and regulations adopted in accordance with it; and the appointment of one or more monitors, who will review municipal decisions by the defendants implicating the FHA, oversee implementation of all aspects and terms of the injunction, and issue written reports every 90 days. The injunctive relief was to remain in effect for ten years or until otherwise ordered by the Court.
On August 1, 2017, Judge Holland issued an order amending the decree granting injunctive relief with respect to training. The Court ordered the FHA training to be completed by August 16, 2017, by the Southwest Fair Housing Council. The Court further ordered that constitutional training was to be completed by September 15, 2017 (with was extended to September 25), and that training on policies and procedures was to be completed within 30 days after the last policy, procedure, regulation, or ordinance was adopted or amended.
On July 19, 2017, the defendants appealed the permanent injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June 7, 2018, the City of Hilldale withdrew its appeal. The remaining defendants' continued litigation. On August 26, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court. 935 F.3d 804. They found that, "[i]n holding that the Towns violated § 12601, the district court correctly interpreted the statute and did not err in admitting the statements of FLDS leaders. We need not address Colorado City’s arguments about the district court’s Fourth Amendment-related factual findings because, even if those arguments are correct, the error was harmless."
Monitor reports from 2018 indicated that there were no outstanding FHA injunction requirements. The police consultant's reports noted staffing changes in the Marshal's Office and progress in relationships between the Marshal's Office and other law enforcement agencies. On December 23, 2019, Judge Holland issued an order reducing the frequency of monitors' reports to two per year. On May 13, 2020, Judge Holland wrote a letter thanking the court monitor and police consultant and affirming that defendants were still in compliance with the injunction.
On November 12, 2020, the court reduced the reporting period for the court monitor’s reports to six-month intervals. Also, on November 12, 2020, the Court received two reports. The report from Roger Carter, the court monitor, covered the period from May 1, 2020, to October 31, 2020. The report covered three areas of work. First, with respect to the Policing Act Injunction, the report found that Hildale, Utah and Colorado City were in compliance with all mandatory orders given in the judgment and the decree granting injunctive relief. Second, with respect to the FHA injunction, the report found that the towns have completed all orders outlined in the judgment and the decreeing. The report found that some of the ordered training were scheduled but past due. Third, with respect to the non-compliant injunction items, the report stated that the monitor requested all minutes from the city’s governing bodies. Overall, the report found that the cities are generally compliant with the judgment and the decree orders and demonstrate a desire to stay compliant with the orders. The second report was submitted by Jim Keith, Professional Police Consultant for the Colorado City Marshal’s Office. The report noted that the police chief was continuing efforts to increase trust and confidence with the community.
The defendants, on July 30, 2021, filed a motion to modify the judgment and the decree granting injunctive relief. The defendants requested that the court remove the requirement to maintain the services of a consultant, because the consultant had completed all the tasks identified in the injunctive order. However, on August 31, 2021, the court denied the defendants’ motion, finding that there were no changed circumstances that would justify dispensing with the requirement that the defendants engage a police consultant. The court further found that there was a need for services of a consultant regarding the hiring and training of staff, the review of policies and procedures, and the investigation of complaints.
On November 1, 2021, the court received another report from Roger Carter, covering the period from May 1, 2021 to October 31, 2021. The report found that cities were in compliance with the policing act. The report noted reorganization with the dispatch services of the cities. The monitor did not oppose the reorganization, but noted that future reports would monitor the changes to assure proper checks and balances, reporting procedures, and auditing capabilities. The report also noted that the towns were in compliance with the fair housing act injunction. However, the report found that the website and public notice website overhauls were incomplete. As such, the town officials assured the monitor that the necessary information would be posted within 60 days. The monitor also provided a number of recommendations to assure that the implementation of programs was stable and sustainable for the future.
On May 2, 2022, Roger Carter submitted another report to the Court. The report indicated that the defendants were in compliance with the policing act injunction and would continue to monitor the change over to the new computer aided dispatch and report writing system. The report continued to express concern about the delays in posting relevant information to the website and public notice system. The report also identified ways to continue to ensure the stability of changes to ensure that the local governments would provide fair, responsive, and equal protection for all citizens.
On October 31, 2022, Roger Carter provided a report to the court at the halfway point of the injunction. The report found that the defendants were in compliance with the policing act and the fair housing act, the adoption of building department policies and procedures, the amendments to the water service regulations, and the mandatory education and training requirements. However, the defendants were not in compliance with the culinary water impact fee.
The district court, on November 4, 2022, issued an order thanking the court monitor for its work. However, it noted concern with the hiring and retention of the local Marshal’s Office officers. The court encouraged the police consultant to work with the office to improve.
On April 30, 2023, the court monitor submitted another report to the court noting that while the defendants were generally in compliance they were not in compliance with the culinary water impact fee and the website and public notice requirements. The report included measures to be taken to become compliant. On May 17, 2023, the court monitor submitted a supplemental report elaborating on the website and public notice requirements. The report indicated that the monitor was working with the mayors and managers of both cities to understand the reasons why the cities had yet to prioritize this requirement. The report also stated that the requirements were intended to be met by June 30, 2023.
On July 7, 2023, the court monitor submitted a report stating that the cities had posted all city council and planning commission minutes on their public website as required.
The court monitor submitted another report on October 31, 2023, finging that the defendants were in compliance with most of the requirements of the injunction except for the culinary water impact fee. The report also noted areas for continued improvement, including self-determination, employment stability, and stakeholder involvement. Judge Holland issued an order on December 4, 2023, requiring the court monitor to meet and confer with appropriate city authorities to establish a timeline for achieving culinary water supply compliance with the court’s judgment and injunction.
As of February 2025, monitoring remains ongoing.
Summary Authors
Blase Kearney (7/31/2012)
David Postel (2/7/2014)
Jessica Kincaid (4/22/2016)
Eva Richardson (3/12/2019)
Alex Moody (5/29/2020)
Jack Hibbard (6/9/2020)
Andrew Eslich (1/16/2024)
Logan Moore (2/14/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4133683/parties/united-states-v-colorado-city-town-of/
Allen, Jonathan M. (Arizona)
Ankersen, Brittney Bullock (Arizona)
Attorney, Christine A.
Attorney, Thomas Chandler,
Abke, Kathleen Josephine (Utah)
Ankersen, Brittney Bullock (Arizona)
Bartolucci, Elizabeth M (Arizona)
Bittner, Michael Andrew (Arizona)
Blessinger, Bryana L. (Arizona)
Blum, Christopher Del (Arizona)
Branca, Michael Andrew (Arizona)
Brett, Sharon (District of Columbia)
Burg, Jeffrey Matthew (Arizona)
Byrnes, Erin Elizabeth (Arizona)
Clarke, Jessica (District of Columbia)
Crockett, Jessica Clarke (District of Columbia)
Dembinski, Nancy Vayda (Arizona)
Dombroff, Mark Andrew (Arizona)
Donnelly, Matthew J. (District of Columbia)
Eliseuson, Anthony T. (Arizona)
Greenberg, Mitchell B (Arizona)
Gzifa, Anika (District of Columbia)
Hagler, Rachael Tamar (Arizona)
Hagler, Tamar (District of Columbia)
Holder, Eric H. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Hubbard, Ralph Shelton (Arizona)
Jones, Erin Elizabeth (Arizona)
Kessler, Maxwell Micah (Arizona)
Keveney, Sean R. (District of Columbia)
Layhew, Katherine Knight (Arizona)
Longman, Douglas Conrad (Arizona)
Lopez, Christy (District of Columbia)
Majeed, Sameena Shina (District of Columbia)
McRea, Terrence Charles (Arizona)
O'Hagan, Kevin Michael (Arizona)
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)
Phillips, Kristine S (Arizona)
Porter, Forestine Nicole (District of Columbia)
Richards, William August (Arizona)
Rodrigue, Michael H. (Arizona)
Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia)
Ross, Leslie Allison (Arizona)
Ryals, Stephen (District of Columbia)
Sacks, Noah David (District of Columbia)
Savner, Emily (District of Columbia)
Schiffman, Benjamin L. (Arizona)
Schmeeckle, Seth Andrew (Arizona)
Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)
Towt, Katharine Farrell (District of Columbia)
Treene, Eric W. (District of Columbia)
Wagner, Lori K. (District of Columbia)
Weinberg, Donald Charles (Arizona)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4133683/united-states-v-colorado-city-town-of/
Last updated June 22, 2025, 3:49 a.m.