Colorado has reversed a controversial requirement that attorneys using the state’s court e-filing system certify they would not use court information to assist federal immigration enforcement efforts.
The verification requirement was removed from state law last week after Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed House Bill 26-1276, creating a carveout for attorneys seeking to use the filing system.
Multiple attorneys spoke out in April after the state’s e-file system required them to certify they would not share such personal information with the federal government — a requirement Colorado officials said stemmed from the Protect Civil Rights Immigration Status Act of 2025.
Colorado Springs attorney Ian Speir told Fox News Digital that Colorado appeared to be “unlawfully coopting private attorneys across the state to further its anti-federal sanctuary policies,” while noting that he doesn’t practice criminal nor immigration law but couldn’t sign into the state court system without “saluting the resistance.”
COLORADO LAWYERS SAY COURT E-FILE SYSTEM NOW MAKES THEM CERTIFY THEY WON’T ASSIST ICE
The House Judiciary Committee took note of Fox News Digital’s reporting on the matter and notified Colorado officials in April that their immigration-related certification wrongly “commandeers private attorneys into Colorado’s radical sanctuary policies, handcuffs federal officials from enforcing immigration law in Colorado, and violates fundamental free speech principles.”
Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., the chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s immigration integrity, security and enforcement subcommittee, told Fox News Digital in a Monday interview that he was pleased to see Colorado reverse itself but warned that the incident is just the latest volley in sanctuary states’ battle against federal supremacy.
He called it the latest example of the notion that any state “can obstruct federal laws they don’t like.”
REP JIM JORDAN, REP TOM MCCLINTOCK: DEMOCRATS THINK THEY CAN OVERRULE LAWS
“I think they’ve crossed the line into obstruction by forbidding attorneys access to the court system without this outrageous pledge under penalty and perjury that they wouldn’t report any information for federal immigration enforcement purposes,” McClintock said.
“Obviously, the state recognized what tenuous ground they had staked out, and it reversed themselves. But I remain concerned over what other sanctuary jurisdictions that comprise this new ‘Confederacy’ may take in the future.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), celebrated the news and noted it was prepared to file a lawsuit against the state government in Denver on First Amendment grounds if it did not repeal the provision.
“Colorado made the right move removing the certification requirement, which was a clear viewpoint-based regulation that violated the First Amendment,” the Washington-based group said in a statement.
Speir added that while the state may be able to tell its own public lawyers what to say to ICE, he, as a private attorney, “work for my clients, not the government.”
Greg Greubel, FIRE’s senior attorney, said in a statement that the government by law cannot condition an attorney’s access to courts “on a promise not to use information for a lawful purpose the state disfavors.”
BLOODTHIRSTY VENEZUELAN GANG PUT ON NOTICE AS NEW BILL CURBS BLUE STATE SANCTUARY POLICIES
“Kudos to Colorado legislators and the governor for acting quickly to resolve this issue, but it’s troubling that the state attempted this in the first place.”
Laws restricting speech must be viewpoint-neutral under the First Amendment, but critics argued that by forcing attorneys not to speak with ICE, they were putting their thumb on the partisan scale.
McClintock said his panel’s focus continues to be on the variety of sanctuary policies in states and cities that are “resisting and in many cases obstructing federal law enforcement,” citing the Supremacy Clause’s assertion that immigration falls under the federal government’s authority.
“That’s particularly important in regions such as mine where the local sheriffs very much want to cooperate with ICE,” said McClintock, who notably chaired the raucous hearing that featured Fairfax County, Virginia, prosecutor Stephen Descano and Sheriff Stacey Kincaid who have been lambasted for their handling of illegal immigrant-related cases.
A measure his panel is working on would allow victims of sanctuary policies to sue those jurisdictions for damages created by the release of illegal immigrant criminals and the like.
Fox News Digital reached out to Polis and ICE for comment.
