Colorado has eliminated a contentious requirement for lawyers using the state’s electronic court filing system to assure that they won’t use court information for federal immigration enforcement purposes.
This change follows Colorado Democratic Governor Jared Polis’s signing of House Bill 26-1276, which provides an exception for attorneys wanting to utilize this filing system. The earlier certification requirements have now been removed from state law. In April, various attorneys raised concerns after being asked to assure that the state’s electronic filing system wouldn’t disclose personal information to federal authorities. The requirement was linked to the Civil Rights Protection and Immigrant Status Act of 2025.
Ian Speer, an attorney in Colorado Springs, expressed to Fox News Digital that it seems like the state is “unlawfully hiring private attorneys throughout Colorado to push anti-federal sanctuary policies.” He pointed out that, although he doesn’t specialize in criminal or immigration law, he felt he couldn’t sign in state court without showing “respect to the resistance.”
The House Judiciary Committee commented on Fox News Digital’s coverage and incorrectly informed Colorado officials in April that immigration-related certifications would enable private attorneys to support the state’s “radical sanctuary policies,” which hinder federal agents from enforcing immigration laws in Colorado and infringe on fundamental free speech principles.
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), who chairs the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee, expressed relief over Colorado’s decision but cautioned that this might just be the latest round in the ongoing battle between sanctuary states and federal authority. He characterized this as a troubling precedent where any state might “block federal laws it finds objectionable.”
“We’ve reached a critical point of obstruction by preventing lawyers from accessing the court system without an excessive pledge under penalty of perjury not to report any information for federal immigration enforcement purposes,” McClintock stated. “Clearly, the state recognized it was on shaky ground and has now stepped back. However, I worry about what actions other sanctuary jurisdictions might take next.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) welcomed the news, stating they would have considered pursuing a First Amendment lawsuit against the Denver state government if the requirement had not been retracted. They noted that even though the removal was a positive step, the certification had been a “point-of-view regulation” that violated First Amendment rights.
Speer added that while the state might be able to dictate what the public defender says to ICE, as a private lawyer, he is obligated to represent the client, not the government. FIRE’s chief attorney, Greg Grubel, asserted that the government cannot lawfully condition a lawyer’s access to the courthouse on a promise not to use information for any lawful purpose that might displease the state.
McClintock highlighted that restrictions on communication with ICE could be perceived as politically biased and emphasized the need to continue addressing various protective policies in states and cities that oppose federal law enforcement. He pointed to local sheriffs being inclined to work with ICE, underscoring the importance of this issue in areas like his, where there is significant cooperation.
In light of ongoing developments, the committee’s initiative aims to allow victims affected by sanctuary policies to sue local jurisdictions for damages arising from the release of criminal undocumented immigrants.
