Just weeks after Municipal Judge Erin Maxwell ruled against the City of Montrose in a contentious legal battle with the Montrose United Methodist Church, city officials dismissed her from the bench. The move is stirring concerns of retaliation and undermining trust in the judicial process.

City leaders insist the firing had nothing to do with Maxwell’s ruling, claiming her contract was terminated by a city council vote earlier this year. But the timing has sparked intense public skepticism—especially given that a new judge was quickly brought in just in time to oversee the second round of court proceedings against the church.

Public Reaction: “It Smelled Fishy”

The optics of the decision haven’t gone unnoticed.

“It felt like retaliation. It smelled fishy,” said Ryan Sedgeley, a Montrose resident who has followed the church hearings closely. “I find it all too convenient that they brought in a new judge for the second round… why not wait until these matters are resolved?”

It’s a sentiment that’s been echoed on social media and in community discussions. While city officials maintain they do not comment on personnel matters, many are calling for transparency—especially when it involves a judge presiding over a high-profile local dispute.

One short sentence here.

The city’s refusal to provide a full explanation hasn’t helped calm speculation.

The Church vs. The City: What’s This About?

Back in February, Judge Maxwell issued a ruling in favor of Montrose United Methodist Church during an emergency abatement hearing. That case involved the city’s attempt to cite the church for alleged violations tied to its sheltering of the homeless—a service the church says is part of its mission.

Then came the second wave.

On June 4, the church faced a new hearing under a different judge. This time, the city brought nearly 30 citations to the table. While no jail time is on the line, the church now faces a potential fine of $81,000.

That switch in judicial oversight—right between the two court events—is what’s raising eyebrows.

So Was It Really About the Ruling?

Officially, the city insists it wasn’t. They claim Judge Maxwell’s contract was slated for non-renewal long before her February decision.

Unofficially? That’s harder to believe for many locals.

There’s no documentation provided by the city yet to support the timeline they’ve claimed. The only public information is that an alternate judge has been appointed to handle municipal court cases while a replacement is found.

One short paragraph.

Still, without a clear explanation from council members, trust in the city’s narrative is eroding fast.

Political Blowback and Transparency Concerns

Montrose has seen its fair share of small-town political drama, but this particular episode seems to have touched a nerve.

Why fire a sitting judge in the middle of a case against one of the city’s most prominent churches?

Why not wait until after the church hearings are completed?

Why was there no announcement earlier if the decision to terminate Maxwell’s contract had already been made?

There’s no law that says a judge’s contract can’t be ended—especially in Colorado, where municipal judges typically serve at the pleasure of the council. But in matters involving public trust, the perception of judicial independence is everything.

What’s Next for the Church—and the Court?

As of now, the $81,000 fine still looms over Montrose United Methodist Church. It’s unclear how the church plans to respond or whether it will seek to challenge the validity of the hearing under a new judge.

Meanwhile, the City of Montrose is working to appoint a permanent replacement for Maxwell. No timeline has been given.

One last brief paragraph here.

But with public opinion turning sour, officials may soon find themselves facing not just legal scrutiny—but political fallout.