A new state law forcing retailers in Colorado to slap labels on gas stoves warning the public of supposed health hazards — a scientifically disputed claim — has been halted by a federal judge.

The temporary injunction is welcome news. It hits pause on yet another extreme-green, over-the-top mandate nitpicking energy options for Coloradans. In this case, the mandate hits Colorado consumers in their own kitchens — in an attempt by the environmental movement’s fringe to stigmatize what long has been regarded the superior means of cooking. 

A lawsuit brought by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers contends the law, adopted by the legislature last spring, requires retailers to parrot “non-consensus, scientifically controversial, and factually misleading” claims about gas stoves.

Forcing such controversial messages, they argue, violates the First Amendment. And they’re right. This amounts to conscripting private companies to advance policy goals chosen by politicians.

Attorney General Phil Weiser countered that the law simply regulates commercial speech and is “purely factual and uncontroversial.” He claimed the First Amendment is irrelevant because a label is “government speech.”

So, the state forces a business to display a message over a disputed issue, but it isn’t compelled speech because it’s “really” the government talking?

Fortunately, U.S. District Judge S. Kato Crews saw through it. Last week, Crews ruled that the Supreme Court’s “strict scrutiny test” applies, requiring the government to prove that the law is narrowly tailored to “further a compelling government interest” through the “least restrictive means” available.

The state couldn’t clear either bar.

Crews found that statements by two of the law’s legislative sponsors — that gas stoves contribute to air pollution — are “not alone enough to prove that HB25-1161 was adopted to combat climate change.”

As The Gazette reported, Crews, a Biden administration appointee, contended the law is neither narrowly tailored nor the “least restrictive means of informing consumers about the alleged health impacts of gas-fueled stoves.”

The judge is spot on. The state has plenty of ways it can inform the public of claims — however debatable — that gas stoves may adversely affect health. But under Colorado’s new law, the act doesn’t just mandate a label. It also requires including a weblink or QR code to a government webpage purporting to share “information on the health impacts of gas-fueled stoves.”

The state can’t outlaw gas stoves outright — yet — though electrification mandates are effectively doing just that. So, regulators for now are focused on stigmatizing gas stoves through mandated warnings, hoping consumers will opt out on their own. It’s behavioral engineering dressed as public health — and consumers’ health is just a pretext.

This isn’t an isolated dispute over a warning label. From electrification mandates to endless environmental regulations, the state is engaged in a wide-scale, coordinated effort to change the day-to-day lives of Coloradans.

To that end, this is yet another front in a much larger campaign against gas-powered appliances — part of the state’s aggressive emissions mandates targeting a 50% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, and net-zero by 2050.

All for what? HB1161 doesn’t impact homes with existing gas stoves, so its purported impact on climate change is infinitesimal anyway.

This transition is far from cheap and easy. Xcel estimates retrofitting a single home to go all electric could cost more than $20,000 before incentives. Even after rebates, the cost to customers could reach “additional billions of dollars.”

Judge Crews saw through it. Will the legislature get the message?