Livestreaming court: Legislative mandates, court-ordered pauses, and what comes next

In 2023, the Colorado General Assembly directed state and municipal courts to begin providing remote public access to criminal court proceedings. State courts had begun livestreaming certain court proceedings earlier that same year under the guidance of a chief justice directive. Municipal courts that didn’t fall under one of the statutory exceptions began livestreaming criminal court proceedings, some under the guidance of a municipal chief judge’s order. In 2026, the General Assembly modified the law to require livestreaming of criminal cases when a defendant is in custody, eliminating some exceptions for those cases, and asserting that the state livestreaming law supersedes any judicial guidance or chief justice directive. Nevertheless, in September 2026, Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Monica Márquez issued a directive pausing all livestreaming in state courts for 90 days. So, what happens next?

This article will provide an overview of the developments in state law around livestreaming criminal cases in Colorado over the past few years, as well as the current state of the law, and will discuss the interplay between state statutory requirements, chief justice directives, and municipal chief judge orders.

Developments in state law on livestreaming

House Bill (HB) 23-1182 was the first state law to require all state and municipal courts to provide remote public access to criminal court proceedings, subject to certain exceptions. Those exceptions included the courtroom having insufficient technological capability; members of the public being excluded from the proceeding by the court; technology, staffing, or internet issues; or a finding that there is a reasonable likelihood that remote observation would compromise safety, the defendant’s right to a fair trial, or a victim’s rights, and there is no less restrictive alternative. The exceptions were intended to address some of the concerns raised by courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and victim advocates. Gov. Jared Polis signed the bill into law on June 7, 2023, and it went into effect Sept. 1, 2023.

While HB23-1182 was working its way through the legislative process, then-Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Brian Boatright issued a directive in April 2023, establishing rules for livestreaming criminal court proceedings in Colorado state courts, which went into effect May 15, 2023. Chief Justice Directive (CJD) 23-02 established standards for expanding and limiting livestreaming in state courts, as well as conditions for livestreaming coverage, some of which overlapped with the exceptions in HB23-1182. CJD 23-02 also identified certain types of criminal proceedings that judicial officers could choose to livestream, but that were not presumptively subject to livestreaming, such as trials and juvenile delinquency cases.

While HB23-1182 largely mirrored CJD 23-02, there were distinctions between the two. Most notably, HB23-1182 established a presumption for livestreaming and directed courts to make findings on the record based on the particular facts and circumstances of that case if a court was not going to permit the livestreaming; CJD 23-02, on the other hand, identified certain types of proceedings that were not presumptively subject to livestreaming. Despite the inherent conflict, it appears that state courts continued to operate under CJD 23-02. This remained the case in 2026 when changes to state law on livestreaming sharpened the conflict.

Current livestreaming requirements

During the most recent legislative session, the General Assembly passed HB26-1134, which was signed into law April 27, 2026, and went into effect that same day. Although this act addressed numerous aspects of municipal court operations, it modified state law on livestreaming for both state and municipal courts in two notable ways.

First, HB26-1134 narrowed the exceptions to the presumptive requirement to livestream criminal proceedings when the defendant is in custody and charged with a municipal violation for which the municipal code allows for a possible sentence of jail time. Now, a municipal court must livestream such proceedings even if it does not have sufficient technological capabilities or staffing. In other words, the legislature deemed the livestreaming of proceedings involving those who are in custody and facing potential jail time to be of such importance, that it should override technological and staffing limitations (note that municipal courts can still rely on the exception for temporary or intermittent internet or technology issues that limit or prevent livestreaming).

Second, HB26-1134 added language stating that the livestreaming requirements in C.R.S. § 13-1-132 “supersede any statute, judicial guidance, or chief justice directive limiting remote public observation of criminal courts, including chief justice directive 23-02.” The proponents of the legislation instituted this provision to combat the CJD and municipal chief judge orders utilized over the past few years to limit livestreaming on a more widespread basis.

Chief justice directives and municipal chief judge orders

Most recently, on Sept. 15, 2026, Chief Justice Márquez issued CJD 26-01, imposing a temporary pause on livestreamed criminal court proceedings in state trial courts because livestreaming technology “has been subverted as a tool of disruption, disparagement, harassment, and private economic gain that is rapidly eroding the proper functioning of our system of justice.” The directive goes on to note that these incidents have occurred in almost every state court in Colorado, as well as many municipal courts. Citing Article III of the Colorado Constitution regarding separation of powers, as well as Article VI, vesting judicial power of the state exclusively in the courts, the directive orders “a 90-day statewide pause on the presumption that Colorado state trial court judges livestream criminal court proceedings” to give the State Judicial Department time to explore solutions such as training, rules, programming or technical changes, and legislative amendments.

Although CJDs only apply to state courts, many municipal judges look to CJDs as guidance for their courts or as a template to institute similar orders for their municipal court. And while CJDs don’t apply to municipal courts, it’s worth noting that the Colorado Supreme Court is responsible for adopting the Colorado Municipal Court Rules of Procedure that govern municipal courts. Accordingly, there is a connection between the Supreme Court’s procedural standard-setting in both state and municipal courts and a sense of continuity that municipal courts often seek to uphold by adopting state court processes and procedures. Noting CJD 26-01’s statements regarding the same disruptions in municipal courts, many municipal courts have adopted or are considering adopting chief judge orders pausing municipal court livestreaming in conjunction with the state court’s pause. This will allow municipal courts to consider solutions to the issue and may also allow them to utilize solutions adopted by the State Judicial Department.

As noted above, state courts continue to operate under a CJD that explicitly conflicts with state law on livestreaming criminal court proceedings, as would the chief judge orders adopted by municipal courts. While the most recent CJD suspending livestreaming makes obvious sense, it raises the question of where the legislature’s authority ends and the judiciary’s authority begins with respect to both state and municipal courts. The tension also highlights the authority of the state to regulate proceedings in the municipal courts of home rule municipalities.

Even so, at this time, we are not aware of any legal challenges to the CJD or municipal chief judge orders. It is unclear whether this is due to the recent issuance of the CJD, the widespread acknowledgement that there are serious issues that need to be resolved to uphold the integrity of the judicial system, or because it is clear that the legislature overstepped its authority in HB26-1134.

What comes next remains to be seen, whether there is a legal challenge to a court’s directive or order, an innovative new solution following the end of the 90-day livestreaming pause, legislative action in 2027, or something else altogether. CML will continue to track developments with both state and municipal court livestreaming, seeking to support an appropriate balance between public access, which has always been a cornerstone of the justice system, and ensuring the dignity and integrity of that system.