A federal judge in Colorado this week rejected bids for a snap decision from both sides in a lawsuit over the state higher-education coordinating board’s policy of banning “pervasively sectarian” colleges from Colorado’s voucherlike program of student aid.

The case pits the Colorado Commission on Higher Education against Colorado Christian University, which says state laws denying aid to its students are unconstitutional (The Chronicle, December 13, 2004).

Both sides asked the judge, Marcia S. Krieger of the U.S. District Court in Denver, to rule on the case summarily, based only on the legal documents submitted by the parties. That’s a routine legal tactic, but it rarely succeeds because there are typically many facts in dispute or are key legal differences that can be resolved only with the benefit of a trial.

In this case, however, Judge Krieger denied the motions for summary judgment because the lawyers on both sides failed to comply with the “formatting requirements” for such documents. Moreover, she wrote in a four-page ruling, the arguments set forth in the motions were mere “boilerplate” that restated points made in earlier briefs.

After listing other deficiencies, Judge Krieger noted that even though both sides “are represented by skilled, experienced counsel,” it was difficult for her to tell what facts are in dispute in the case. She said the litigants could either refile their motions or wait for the trial, now scheduled for May 2007.