The U.S. House Judiciary Committee is seeking information from Colorado’s court administrator regarding a new requirement that attorneys certify they will not use court data for immigration enforcement, arguing it unlawfully obstructs federal law and compels political speech tied to the state’s “sanctuary” policies.

Colorado, a blue state that has passed “sanctuary” laws, has been in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, which has cracked down on illegal immigration. Colorado officials, meanwhile, have adopted a confrontational stance against both the administration and Trump’s policies, routinely criticizing the president and suing over an array of issues.

Broadly speaking, “sanctuary” policies restrict or prohibit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Colorado and Denver have adopted laws barring such cooperation, though political leaders insist neither the state nor municipality is a “sanctuary” jurisdiction.

The new court rule, which arose out of the requirements of a 2025 law, mandates attorneys accessing Colorado’s state electronic court filing system to certify information obtained from the database will not be used to assist federal immigration enforcement.

At its core, the 2025 law reemphasized existing statutes that precludes local law enforcers from detaining an individual based on an “immigration detainer.”

State statutes already prohibit an employee of a state agency from disclosing any identifying information of a person to assist with immigration enforcement. The new legislation extended that to employees of all political subdivisions, such as “home rule” counties and municipalities.

Crucially, the law extended the definition of “state agency” to the judicial and legislative branches. That change meant the courts became subjects to the laws, first adopted in 2021, requiring third parties accessing non-public records to certify, “under penalty of perjury,” that they will not use the information for the purposes of immigration enforcement.

“This certification, made under penalty of perjury, obstructs federal law and prevents federal officials from using Colorado state court information to enforce federal immigration law,” the letter from the House Judiciary Committee said.

“It also hijacks the private practice of law to fulfill the political goals of the state of Colorado and undermines attorneys’ ethical obligations, all to ensure that illegal and criminal aliens in Colorado can remain in the state indefinitely,” the letter, addressed to the court administrator, added.

The committee said it wants to know the penalties for third parties who violate the court rule; the number of complaints against it; how many private attorneys have been “punished” and any documents relating to their investigation; and all documents relating to the court’s decision on how to implement the law’s requirements.

The letter was signed by U.S. Reps. Jim Jordan, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Tom McClintock, chairman of its Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.

In a congressional hearing last year, Jordan clashed with Denver Mayor Mike Johnston over the city’s sanctuary policies, pressing him on cooperation with federal immigration agents and the release of an alleged Venezuelan gang member onto the streets, instead of to federal immigration agents.

That release was captured on a video, which showed the alleged gang member getting released onto the streets outside the county jail, and, upon seeing federal authorities, running, leaving ICE agents to chase after him.

Johnston did not respond to a request for comment.

Last year, Gov. Jared Polis signed into law the “Protect Civil Rights Immigration Status” bill, which was sponsored by a group of Democratic lawmakers, including state Sen. Julie Gonzales, who is running for the U.S. Senate.

Polis’ office referred The Denver Gazette’s inquiry to the State Court Administrator’s Office, which said it did not request the legislation but is required to follow it.

“The Department did not request this legislation, but is obligated to comply with it,” Suzanne Karrer, a spokesperson for the State Court Administrator’s Office, said in an email.

Gonzales said the law was intended to limit the sharing of state data with third parties, not restrict attorneys’ access to court systems.

“The judicial branch’s application of the certification is not our intent and will be addressed legislatively,” she said, adding that lawmakers are working to clarify the issue this session. “It is frustrating to see that, yet again, MAGA extremists in Congress are seeking to score cheap political points when what they should be doing is ending the war (in Iran).”

The new law dealt with privacy rules around personal data, expanded legal remedies for defendants and set new restrictions on how public institutions and law enforcement handle and access information.

Under the law, a government worker faces a civil fine of $50,000 for each violation of the prohibition to share information to federal immigration authorities. 

Ian Speir, a constitutional attorney in Colorado Springs, likened the new requirement to “saluting The Resistance” on X, saying that it hampers his ability to fully represent his clients.

“If I don’t click ‘Accept’ in order to access the State’s e-filing system, I will harm my clients, torpedo my practice, and probably commit malpractice,” Speir wrote. “So, I have no choice. I’m clicking ‘Accept’ under protest.”

Attorney General Phil Weiser, who has already deployed the 2025 law by suing a sheriff’s deputy over the arrest of an individual who had overstayed her visa, declined to comment.

A prominent First Amendment attorney said he believes the annual, one-time requirement is unconstitutional.

“Imagine, for example, if anyone wishing to access a public library were required to sign a statement, before entering, saying, ‘I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that I will not use any of the information I obtain from this library in support of any Democratic candidate for office,’ ” Steve Zansberg said in an email.

“That viewpoint-based discrimination in providing access to a public resource would unquestionably be unconstitutional (regardless of how likely, or unlikely, it is that the person who violated that oath would be sanctioned therefor),” he said. 

“The same is true here,” he added.

Zansberg represents The Denver Gazette and several other media organizations.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Acting Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Lauren Bis said the state’s stance on immigration enforcement is a threat to public safety.

“This is insane,” Bis said in a statement to The Denver Gazette. “Colorado’s sanctuary politicians continue to try to shield criminal illegal aliens from arrest. We need cooperation from sanctuary politicians to help arrest public safety threats.”

Denver, and Colorado more broadly, have become part of the national immigration debate following an influx of immigrants over the past three years that strained city finances, with more than 40,000 people arriving in the state.

Denver emerged as an unexpected destination, despite its distance from the southern border, in part due to the temporary housing and services city officials provided during the illegal immigration surge.

The Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua later became a focal point in the presidential election, with President Donald Trump promising mass deportations beginning in Aurora.