Colorado Democrats are considering a bill that would let people sue federal, state, and local officials for alleged constitutional violations — a change supporters say would check government power, while critics warn it could trigger a surge of lawsuits against public employees.

Senate Bill 176, dubbed the “No Kings Act,” is sponsored by Sens. Mike Weissman, D-Aurora, and Julie Gonzales, D-Denver, and Reps. Javier Mabrey, D-Denver, and Yara Zokaie, D-Fort Collins, would allow individuals who have been subjected to a “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities” afforded in the U.S. Constitution to sue for civil damages within two years of the alleged violation.

The bill still permits federal officials to claim absolute or qualified immunity, but both forms of immunity come with exceptions.

A wide range of groups, from the District Attorneys Council to victims’ rights and child welfare advocates, oppose the bill not because of what it would mean for federal officials, but because of its impact on local officials.

According to Jessica Dotter of the Colorado District Attorneys Council, the bill would also allow individuals to file civil suits against state and local officials, including lawmakers, judges, certain medical professionals, and even school librarians.

Allowing those officials to assert a defense of qualified or absolute immunity isn’t a sufficient protection, Dotter argued, because the decision whether or not to grant that immunity is up to the judge.

She added, “It would create a brand new vehicle, if you will, for plaintiff’s attorneys to take any aggrieved person — one who doesn’t agree with what the librarian did, or the judge did, or the DA did, or the governor did — and be able to sue them in state court.”

While case law exists protecting state officials from being sued in federal court, Colorado district attorneys believe there is insufficient precedent at the state court level to provide the same immunity.

“We would have to start at the starting line and develop that, which will take years and years,” Dotter said. “And in the meantime, it will cost counties a bunch of money to indemnify and insure all of their employees against any potential lawsuit.”

Supporters of the bill argue it’s needed to guard against government overreach, pointing to recent federal actions they say illustrate the risks.

“What we’ve seen as recently as yesterday are examples of abuses of constitutional rights, or at least threats to them, that go well outside the immigration context,” said Weissman, referring to a federal investigation into the Southern Poverty Law Center for allegedly engaging in wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Weissman called the investigation and ensuing indictment a “paradigm example of the federal regime weaponizing the apparatus of government against disfavored organizations or viewpoints.”

He added, “It’s exactly the kind of thing that deserves a remedy.”

Senate Bill 176 has not yet been assigned to a committee.

The sponsors of SB 176 are also sponsoring Senate Bill 005, which would allow an individual to sue a federal immigration agent for violating their constitutional rights. That bill passed the Senate on a 20-11 vote and will now be heard by the House Judiciary Committee.