A divided panel of Colorado legislators on Monday advanced a proposal to give individuals injured during an immigration enforcement operation the ability to sue federal agents in state court.

The measure comes amid speculation that Colorado could be next on the Trump administration’s target, given the tension between the White House and the state, which has adopted “sanctuary” policies that bar cooperation between federal agents and local officers on immigration matters.

It is the latest development in an-already tense relationship between Colorado and the Trump administration, which has traded barbs and lawsuits, underpinned by the former’s campaign to crackdown on illegal immigration and the latter’s “sanctuary” policies. At the outset, Colorado’s Democratic officials have signaled a confrontational stance vis-a-vis the Trump administration — the attorney general last month announced the launch of an online “tool” for Coloradans to report misconduct by federal agents, while the city of Denver is considering barring the wearing of masks by law enforcers.

Broadly speaking, a sanctuary city refers to local policies that limit or prohibit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Both the Colorado government and the city of Denver have adopted laws barring such cooperation, though political leaders insist neither state nor municipality is a “sanctuary” jurisdiction.

The latest proposal out of the state Capitol would allow a “cause of action” by individuals injured in an immigration enforcement operation.

The proposal does not explicitly identify the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the U.S. Border Patrol, though it expressly reference enforcing federal immigration laws.

Senate Bill 5 is sponsored by Sens. Julie Gonzales of Denver and Mike Weissman of Aurora, the Democrats who sponsored last year’s law that, among its provisions, further limited the ability of local governments and law enforcement agencies to provide personally identifying information or immigration status to federal immigration authorities. The exemptions are criminal investigations.

Senate Bill 5 would also allow for “legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief” if an agent “violates” the U.S. Constitution while participating in immigration enforcement action.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was dominated by testimony from individuals who support the proposal.

Gonzales began by identifying people who, she said, were killed by federal immigration agents during the past year, including former Colorado resident Renee Nicole Good. The latter died after she was shot by an immigration agent last month in Minneapolis.

The Trump administration and Democrats have offered competing versions of what happened in the case of Good. The former insisted that Good “weaponized” her car against federal officers; the latter countered that shooting her was unwarranted.

What’s happening in Minnesota is not unlike what’s happening here, Gonzales said, pointing to a family in Durango who last year was mistaken for someone else and detained. She said legal observers in Durango were shoved to the ground by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. She added that, in the case of a family in Alamosa, the car windows were smashed by immigration agents while a baby was in the backseat.

“The Constitution protects us all, and that, my friends, is the genesis of this bill,” she said.

The proposal creates a remedy in state court for violations of constitutional law, the Democrat said, adding it will hold those individuals who trample on the rights of Coloradans accountable.

The bill raised several questions, notably what happens to the concept of “qualified immunity” designed to protect federal officers from harassment while performing their duties.

Sen. Lynda Zamora-Wilson, R-Colorado Springs, asked how the state legislature can override federal immunity principles without violating the separations of power or federal supremacy.

Weissman said qualified immunity “is a balancing act between the functions of government” and the rights of the citizenry.

That immunity language was further clarified by an amendment the legislator offered and which the committee approved at the hearing’s end.

Meagan Forbes, senior legislative counsel for the Institute for Justice, said the bill responds to a serious problem — that no meaningful legal remedy exists in state or federal courts when a person’s constitutional rights are violated by federal officials.

“Constitutional rights are supposed to come with enforcement mechanisms,” she said, arguing that the bill will restore basic accountability that was once available under common law and maintaining it “does not impede lawful immigration policy.”

In Eagle County, Alex Sanchez of Voces Unidas talked about the experience of “Jose,” a carpenter who, he said, has spent 10 years building his life in Colorado.

Last summer, he was arrested in a parking lot in Rifle, tackled by agents who, Sanchez claimed, beat him. Jose arrived at the Aurora detention center so bloodied that staff put him in isolation. Weeks later, he was deported to Mexico.

Sanchez did not specifically mention Jose’s immigration status, though his deportation means he had been living in the country illegally.

ICE agents have carried out fake traffic stops, Sanchez also claimed, or left “ace of spades death cards” inside vehicles. Sanchez called the latter racist threats meant for the families of the detained.

He also pointed to the case of Delvin Francisco Rodriguez, who Sanchez said is the first Colorado resident to die in ICE custody.

“It underscores the needs for remedies for families like Jose and Delvin and so many others who have nowhere to turn when their rights are violated,” Sanchez.

Some of those who opposed the bill, like Sofia Llamas of Aurora, suggested that civil rights belong only to lawful residents.

The bill, she added, is but another tool by the state “to protect illegals over Americans,” she said, adding it will hurt Americans because it will cost litigation money.

Llamas listed the first names of people she said had been killed by immigrants illegally living in the U.S. She said supporters of the bill deliberately do not mention any Americans killed, “but you you sure focus on protecting illegals over Americans.”

Others said the proposal does not solve real-world problems.

Juan Candil, who said he is a student and a lawful immigrant who has been in the U.S. for a decade recounted how his family fled cartels and sought refuge in America. He said the proposal only solves problems that “exist in campaign speeches, not in the real world of public safety.”

Removing immunity from federal officers will not safeguard the immigrant community — instead, he said, it will merely “empower” the criminal elements he and his family fled from.

“I have followed the rules, I have respected the process. It’s insulting to a lawful immigrant to see the state prioritized sanctuary policies that make our communities less secure,” he said.

The bill is likely to invite lawsuits from the Trump administration. The proposal comes with a $125,000 cost for those lawsuits — to be covered by a state “risk management cash fund,” akin to a self-insurance pool.

Zamora-Wilson raised the issue of cost: The fiscal analysis also pointed to an estimate of $3.3 million cost per year beginning in Fiscal Year 2026-27 “from an additional 13 cases per year against state employees who are presumed to have injured an individual while participating in federal immigration enforcement.”

During a news conference held prior to the hearing, Rep. Yara Zokaie, D-Fort Collins, said what she heard from her community is “pain and fear.” She accused immigration agencies of operating “in secrecy and outright deception, and that deception is perpetrated by the highest ranking officials in this country that would have us not believe our own eyes and ears.”

Zokaie, Rep. Elizabeth Velasco, D-Glenwood Springs, and others mentioned other bills that they intend to introduce this session — that ICE agents must not be masked, that people must be notified when federal immigration authorities seek information about them or that detention centers would be held accountable when those detained don’t have access to water, food, or even comfortable temperatures.

The bill now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee after a party-line 5-2 vote.