One year and 12 days.

That’s how long a Colorado law requiring attorneys to certify they would not use court data for federal immigration enforcement remained on the books before lawmakers repealed it.

Gov. Jared Polis signed the initial legislation, Senate Bill 25-276, on May 23, 2025. That legislation extended to the courts a law prohibiting disclosure of information for the purpose of assisting in federal immigration enforcement.

The governor signed the modification to that law via House Bill 26-1276 on June 4. That modification exempted the Colorado courts’ e-filing system from the requirement that users certify they would not disclose information for the purpose of federal immigration enforcement.

More than 40,000 account holders had agreed to the certification, said Suzanne Karrer, a spokesperson for the Colorado Judicial Branch.

Some opposed the requirement, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights.

“The final version of this legislation reflects the work of lawmakers and stakeholders throughout the legislative process to fix this problem for attorneys so they don’t have to risk making a false representation or committing perjury,” a spokesperson for Polis said. “The Governor signed HB26-1276 because it strengthens protections for personal information, improves oversight and accountability for immigration detention facilities, and helps ensure Colorado laws are implemented consistently.”

Rep. Lorena Garcia, D-Adams County, a co-sponsor of both bills, said the original legislation was intended to strengthen data privacy protections for immigrants.

“This year, Colorado Democrats passed HB26-1276 to establish some needed guardrails on federal detention centers,” Garcia said in a statement to The Denver Gazette. “We learned that immigration attorneys were having a difficult time getting information about their clients, and this year’s law excluded the e-filing system requirement to streamline and improve the process.”

State Sen. Julie Gonzales, a Denver Democrat running for the U.S. Senate who was also among the sponsors, said that the certification requirement for lawyers was unintended.

The 2025 rule had mandated that attorneys accessing the state’s electronic court filing system certify that information obtained from the database would not be used to assist federal immigration enforcement.

Colorado statute already prohibits state employees from disclosing any identifying information to assist with immigration enforcement.

Crucially, the law extended the definition of “state agency” to the judicial and legislative branches. That change meant the courts became subject to the law, requiring third parties accessing nonpublic records to certify, “under penalty of perjury,” that they will not use the information for the purposes of immigration enforcement.

Under the law, a government worker faced a civil fine of $50,000 for each violation. 

Ian Speir, a constitutional attorney in Colorado Springs, said he clicked “accept” under protest.

Speir said the state had to have known the law was going to be a problem.

“Colorado has been ground zero for rampant First Amendment violations,” Speir said.

He cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 8-1 ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, which found Colorado’s “conversion therapy” ban for minors unconstitutionally restricted the First Amendment rights of therapists.

“These kinds of laws are not isolated problems in Colorado, unfortunately,” Speir said.

The state “received a small number of concerns” about the certification, none referred for investigation, Karrer, the court spokesperson, said.

In April, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee sought information from Colorado’s court administrator about the certification, arguing the state law had unlawfully obstructed federal law and compelled political speech tied to the state’s “sanctuary” policies.

“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 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.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials have said that the state’s stance on immigration enforcement was a threat to public safety.

A blue state that has passed “sanctuary” laws, Colorado has been in the Trump administration’s crosshairs as the president has cracked down on illegal immigration.

Colorado officials, meanwhile, have adopted a confrontational stance against the administration’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 that neither the state nor the municipality is a “sanctuary” jurisdiction.

Denver, and Colorado more broadly have become part of the national immigration debate following an influx of more than 40,000 immigrants, who arrived three years ago after illegally crossing America’s southern border, straining city finances.

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 Trump promising mass deportations beginning in Aurora.