Colorado City, Arizona – A significant development has occurred in the long-standing civil rights case against the Town of Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah. On July 1, 2025, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), along with the defendants, filed a Joint Motion to Terminate the Court’s April 18, 2017 Judgment and Decree Granting Injunctive Relief and to dismiss the action. This motion, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, signals a potential end to federal oversight that has been in place for over eight years.
The original lawsuit, initiated by the United States on June 6, 2012, alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of violating individuals’ rights under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Following a trial in January 2016, a jury found that the defendants had violated the FHA by discriminating against non-FLDS individuals in housing and related services. The jury also issued advisory verdicts against the Colorado City Marshal’s Office (CCMO), which provides policing services to both towns, finding violations of the Establishment Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and Fourth Amendment due to issues like entanglement with the FLDS Church, discrimination against non-FLDS members, and arrests without probable cause.
The 2017 injunction was put in place to remedy these violations, with provisions for a Court-appointed Monitor to oversee implementation. The injunction was set to remain in effect for ten years or until otherwise ordered by the court.
The joint motion to terminate is filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which allows for relief from a judgment when it has been “satisfied, released, or discharged.” The parties argue that termination is appropriate because the defendants have substantially complied with the terms of the injunction and that conditions in Colorado City and Hildale have significantly improved.
According to the motion, Court Monitor and Police Consultant reports since at least May 2020 have consistently shown the defendants to be in compliance with the injunction. Court orders have also acknowledged this compliance, noting the defendants’ “good faith expanding efforts” and their movement “beyond technical compliance in the direction of openness and trust between residents and city officials and marshals.”
Specific compliance measures cited in the motion include:
- Fair Housing Act Injunction: Defendants have approved and recorded a subdivision plat, adopted building department policies, amended water service regulations, implemented a Culinary Water Impact Fee, developed publicly accessible municipal websites, and attended FHA training. They have been in substantial compliance with the FHA injunction since November 2018.
- Policing Act Injunction: Defendants have engaged a policing consultant, hired additional police officers, implemented new internal affairs policies, revised other policies, implemented a body-worn camera program, provided annual training on constitutional amendments, improved cooperation with county sheriffs, and hired a mentor for the Chief Marshal. They have been in substantial compliance with these requirements since May 2020.
While the Joint Motion has been filed, it has not yet been signed by the Court and could still be denied. A timeline for potential objections to the motion is also anticipated.
