Colorado Bill Would Allow State-Court Lawsuits Against Federal Immigration Agents

DENVER — A bill advancing through the Colorado legislature would allow anyone injured during federal immigration enforcement to sue agents in state court, stripping them of qualified immunity protections that have long shielded government officials from civil liability.

SB26-005, sponsored by Sen. Mike Weissman (D-Aurora) and Sen. Julie Gonzales (D-Denver), cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 5-2 party-line vote on February 2 and now awaits action by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Approximately 60 people signed up to testify during a hearing that lasted more than three hours, according to KOAA.

The bill creates a new cause of action for violations of federal constitutional rights occurring during civil immigration enforcement, including improper search and seizure, excessive force, due process violations, and wrongful death. It strips defendants of qualified immunity, sovereign immunity, and supremacy clause immunity “to the maximum extent permissible under the United States Constitution,” according to the bill text.

“The Constitution protects us all, and that, my friends, is the genesis of this bill,” Sen. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Part of a broader legislative package

SB26-005 was introduced on the opening day of the 2026 session and is the centerpiece of a broader multi-bill Democratic legislative package announced in early February. The package also includes bills expanding restrictions on data sharing with federal immigration authorities and limiting ICE enforcement near sensitive locations, according to the Colorado Sun.

Democrats separately passed SJR26-006, a joint resolution expressing the legislature’s commitment to Coloradans navigating the immigration system and ensuring transparency in federal enforcement. The Senate voted 20-12 on February 2 and the House voted 40-20 on February 3, with the resolution adopted February 4. A separate bill in the package would restrict enforcement near courthouses, schools, health care facilities, and religious establishments, according to the Colorado Sun.

The legislative push follows a 318% increase in ICE arrests in Colorado. Federal agents arrested at least 3,522 people from January 20 to October 15, 2025, up from 843 during the same period in 2024, according to the Colorado Sun. The proportion of those arrested with prior criminal convictions dropped from 61% to 37% over the same period.

Two 37-year-olds, Alex Pretti and Renee Good, both with Colorado ties, were killed in Minneapolis in January 2026 amid the federal immigration crackdown, sparking national protests and accelerating state legislative responses, according to the Colorado Sun.

Supporters cite shrinking federal remedies

Proponents argue that existing legal remedies for constitutional violations by federal officers have effectively disappeared. Meagan Forbes, senior legislative counsel at the Institute for Justice (an organization that describes itself as “the national law firm for liberty”), testified that “no meaningful legal remedy exists in state or federal courts when a person’s constitutional rights are violated by federal officials,” according to Townhall.

That legal gap widened in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Egbert v. Boule that Border Patrol agents are exempt from Bivens liability, the primary federal mechanism for suing federal officers who violate constitutional rights.

“There is no more American idea than equality under the law,” Sen. Weissman told CBS Colorado.

Colorado has precedent for eliminating qualified immunity. In 2020, the legislature passed SB 20-217, making Colorado the first state to legislatively strip qualified immunity protections from state and local law enforcement officers.

Opponents warn of constitutional clash

Republicans on the committee voted against the bill, with Sen. John Carson calling it a “political statement” and arguing that adequate legal remedies already exist, according to CBS Colorado. Sen. Lynda Zamora Wilson warned the bill would create a “chilling effect” on law enforcement, according to KOAA.

A Weld County opposition analysis raised concerns about the bill’s one-way attorney fee structure, which requires courts to award fees to prevailing plaintiffs under a broad “catalyst” standard while defendants can recover fees only if a claim is ruled frivolous. The analysis also flagged the bill’s broad scope, which targets “another person” who participated in enforcement “whether or not under color of law,” according to the Weld County analysis.

The Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board characterized the bill as part of a pattern of defiance, writing, “Really, how many times must Colorado’s political leaders remind our nation they have no respect for U.S. borders?”

The fiscal note estimates the legislation would cost $125,000 initially for anticipated federal legal challenges and $3.3 million annually for approximately 13 cases per year against state employees participating in federal immigration enforcement, starting in fiscal year 2026-27, according to Colorado Politics.

A national movement with legal hurdles

Colorado is not alone. Illinois became the first state to enact a similar law in December 2025 following an ICE enforcement surge in Chicago. The Trump administration sued to block the Illinois law on December 29, arguing it violates the Supremacy Clause and “chills the enforcement of federal law,” according to Capitol News Illinois. California’s Senate passed its own version, SB 747 (the “No Kings Act”), on a 30-10 vote. Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia are considering comparable measures.

Colorado’s bill is reported to go further than Illinois’s law by broadening who can be sued, explicitly stripping multiple forms of immunity, and including the one-way attorney fee provision, according to multiple analyses.

Wyoming officials have rejected Colorado’s approach. State Sen. John Kolb (R-Rock Springs) called the bill “insane,” telling Cowboy State Daily, “You don’t go after the people who enforce the law.” Laramie County Sheriff Brian Kozak called it a “feel-good law,” according to the same report.

The bill’s path forward remains uncertain. Even if enacted, enforcement may prove difficult given federal sovereign immunity doctrines and the potential for federal officers to remove cases to federal court. The bill’s “to the maximum extent permissible” language acknowledges those constitutional limits while attempting to push them.