Bill Summary
SB26-005 creates a new Colorado state court cause of action for a person who is injured during “civil immigration enforcement” when another person violates the United States Constitution while participating in that enforcement.
- It applies to “another person” whether or not acting “under color of law,” so the target is not limited to government officials.
- It allows “legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief,” which is broad.
- It requires courts to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff, including a “catalyst” standard in certain injunction cases.
- It allows a court to award fees to a defendant only for claims found frivolous.
- It attempts to make many immunity defenses inapplicable “to the maximum extent permissible,” including qualified immunity, supremacy clause immunity, and governmental immunity.
- It sets a two-year statute of limitations for these claims.
Position: Oppose
Constitutional rights and due process matter. Accountability for unlawful conduct matters. But SB26-005 is written so broadly that it invites litigation, confusion, and collateral damage, with costs that will not stay neatly contained.
Colorado should not turn state courts into a proxy battlefield over federal immigration policy. That is not local control. That is political theater with a real price tag.
Why I Am Taking This Position
Start with the scope. The bill defines “civil immigration enforcement” as actions to investigate, question, detain, transfer, or arrest a person for the purpose of enforcing federal civil immigration law. That is a lot of ground.
Next, SB26-005 goes beyond government actors. It authorizes suits against “another person” whether or not under color of law, as long as they were “participating” in civil immigration enforcement. The bill does not clearly define the edges of “participating,” and unclear laws do not protect rights. They create uncertainty and lawsuits.
Then there is the immunity language. The bill tries to switch off most immunity defenses “to the maximum extent permissible under the United States Constitution,” including sovereign immunity, official immunity, intergovernmental immunity, qualified immunity, supremacy clause immunity, statutory immunity, and common law immunity. That kind of blanket approach reads tough, but it creates a legal mess in practice.
Finally, the attorney-fee structure is one-way by design. Courts must award fees to a prevailing plaintiff, while defendants only may recover fees for claims deemed frivolous. That is not balanced accountability. It is an incentive system for more litigation, even when the defendant ultimately prevails.
Colorado has real work to do: affordability, public safety staffing, and keeping our economy strong. We can defend constitutional rights without building a new lawsuit machine around immigration enforcement.
Call to Action – What You Should Do!
Contact your state senator and state representative. Ask them to oppose SB26-005 and to focus on practical solutions that improve public safety, respect due process, and keep government in its proper lane.
