preliminary, procedural or intermediate agency action or
ruling . . . .’ ” Id., 309. We concluded that “the legislature
intended that both [§§ 4-183 (b) and 46a-94a (a)] apply to
appeals from [commission] proceedings and viewed the
term ‘final order’ [in § 46a-94a (a)] as encompassing both
a ‘final decision’ under § 4-183 (a) and a ‘preliminary,
procedural or intermediate agency action or ruling’ under
§ 4-183 (b).” Id., 319.
“[Section] 4-183 (b) permits a person to bring an inter-
locutory appeal from a [commission] proceeding only
if ‘(1) it appears likely that the person will otherwise
qualify under [the Uniform Administrative Procedure
Act] to appeal from the final agency action or ruling
and (2) postponement of the appeal would result in an
inadequate remedy.’ ” Id., 321. The second prong of §
4-183 (b) is at issue here, as the parties dispute whether
the Judicial Branch would have had an adequate remedy
in the administrative forum without an interlocutory
appeal to vindicate its claim of immunity from suit.
In applying § 4-183 (b), we have described it as “settled
law that a colorable claim to a right to be free from an
action is protected from the immediate and irrevocable
loss that would be occasioned by having to defend an
action through the availability of an immediate inter-
locutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss.”
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Trinity Christian
School v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportuni-
ties, 329 Conn. 684, 693, 189 A.3d 79 (2018). As we
observed in Stamford, “[t]o the extent that a party seeks
judicial review of a colorable claim of immunity from
suit, the proper channel would be an interlocutory appeal
pursuant to § 4-183 (b).” Stamford v. Commission on
Human Rights & Opportunities, Office of Public Hear-
ings, supra, 351 Conn. 314 n.12. A colorable claim is one
that “ ‘may reasonably be asserted’ ” or “arguably has
merit” in light of “the facts presented and the current
law (or a reasonable extension thereof) . . . .” Lederle v.
Spivey, 332 Conn. 837, 845, 213 A.3d 481 (2019). Col-
orability is a low bar and requires only a “superficially
State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch v. Commission on Human Rights &
Opportunities, Office of Public Hearings