Why It Matters
Colorado attorneys must now accept terms promising not to share personal information with federal immigration authorities before accessing the state’s electronic court filing system. The requirement stems from a 2025 state law restricting data sharing related to immigration status and has drawn sharp criticism from lawyers who say it forces them to choose between complying with state mandates and cooperating with federal enforcement.
What Happened
Multiple attorneys reported this week that Colorado’s court filing system now requires them to certify they will not use or disclose personal identifying information obtained from court databases to assist federal immigration enforcement. The certification applies to enforcement of civil immigration laws and specific federal statutes governing illegal entry and reentry unless required by law or court order.
The electronic notification cites the Protect Civil Rights Immigration Status Act, passed by the Colorado legislature in 2025. That law prohibits the collection or disclosure of information related to immigration status in healthcare, education, and government settings.
Attorneys who log into the system are presented with a message requiring them to accept or decline the terms. Those who decline must complete an additional certification process to proceed.
By the Numbers
The updated certification process took effect March 30. The Colorado Judicial Department had initially paused implementation in September for additional review before deploying the current version.
The certification applies to nonpublic personal identifying information as defined by statute. The majority of court information remains publicly accessible.
Federal data shows assaults on immigration agents have increased significantly during recent enforcement operations in sanctuary jurisdictions.
Zoom Out
Colorado’s move reflects a broader confrontation between states and the federal government over immigration enforcement. Multiple jurisdictions have enacted sanctuary policies limiting cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, while the Department of Homeland Security has filed lawsuits challenging state laws that obstruct federal operations.
Virginia recently reversed course on similar restrictions following public safety concerns. Minnesota officials have warned that blocking cooperation with ICE contributed to civil unrest in the Twin Cities.
The Trump administration has also sued Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker over laws shielding illegal immigrants from courthouse arrests.
What’s Next
Ian Speir, founder of Covenant Law, said he accepted the terms under protest but argued the requirement unlawfully enlists private attorneys to support the state’s sanctuary policies. He noted he cannot represent clients or file documents without accepting the certification, despite practicing in areas unrelated to immigration or criminal law.
Legal observers suggested the requirement could face federal challenge. Critics pointed to seditious conspiracy statutes prohibiting actions that hinder execution of federal law.
The Colorado Judicial Department, Governor Jared Polis, and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.