Bill Summary
SB26-005 creates a new Colorado state-court cause of action for a person who is injured during “civil immigration enforcement” and alleges a violation of federal constitutional rights.
- Allows a lawsuit against “another person” who participated in civil immigration enforcement, whether or not they acted “under color of law.”
- Allows legal relief, equitable relief, or “any other appropriate relief.”
- Requires courts to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff. In injunction cases, a plaintiff can be deemed to have prevailed if the suit was a “substantial factor” or “significant catalyst.”
- Allows a defendant to recover fees only when the court finds claims frivolous.
- Attempts to make many immunity defenses not apply “to the maximum extent permissible under the United States constitution,” including sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, supremacy clause immunity, and the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act.
- Sets a two-year statute of limitations.
Position: Oppose
Principle: We can defend constitutional rights without turning Colorado state courts into a new, one-way litigation pipeline tied to immigration enforcement.
Local impact: This bill is written broadly and paired with mandatory plaintiff attorney fees. That combination invites more lawsuits, chills lawful cooperation, and pushes real costs onto counties in staff time, risk management, and public safety capacity. When the rules are unclear, agencies tend to do less, and that is not a public safety plan.
Action: The legislature should narrow this approach substantially, focus on clear misconduct, and avoid creating incentives that reward litigation first and problem-solving last. A courtroom is not a substitute for good policy. It is just a more expensive conversation.
Why I Am Taking This Position
The bill’s trigger is “injured during civil immigration enforcement,” and the target is “another person” who “participat[es].” That is not a narrow tool. It is a wide net, and wide nets catch more than intended.
The immunity language is the tell. SB26-005 does not just create a claim. It tries to sweep away long-standing immunity defenses, limited only by “to the maximum extent permissible under the United States constitution.” That is legislative shorthand for pushing the boundaries until a court stops it. That may be a political strategy. It is not responsible governance.
The attorney-fee structure is also lopsided by design. Plaintiffs get mandatory fees when they prevail, including under a broad “catalyst” standard in injunction cases. Defendants get fees only if a court finds a claim frivolous. That is an incentive system that encourages filing and discourages timely, practical cooperation.
Finally, “whether or not under color of law” raises serious questions about who can be sued and what it means to be “participating” in civil immigration enforcement. The bill excludes actions by a peace officer acting within the scope of duties consistent with state law, but it does not resolve the real-world gray areas where agencies coordinate or respond to overlapping incidents. Unclear boundaries lead to hesitation, and hesitation can create gaps that bad actors exploit.
Call to Action – What You Should Do!
Contact your state senator and state representative. Ask them to vote no on SB26-005 or, at minimum, narrow it so it does not punish lawful public safety work and does not create a one-way attorney-fee magnet.
