UMVA has learned that Colorado has reversed a highly contentious requirement that attorneys using the state's court e-filing system certify they would not use court information to assist federal immigration enforcement efforts.
The stunning about-face came after Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed House Bill 26-1276, creating a carveout for attorneys seeking to use the filing system. This move has been hailed as a major victory for attorneys and free speech advocates.
According to information obtained by UMVA, multiple attorneys had spoken out against the requirement, which was introduced in April. They argued that it unlawfully coerced private attorneys into furthering the state's anti-federal sanctuary policies.
Colorado Springs attorney Ian Speir was vocal in his criticism, saying that he couldn’t sign into the state court system without "saluting the resistance." The requirement had been linked to the Protect Civil Rights Immigration Status Act of 2025, a law that has sparked intense debate.
The House Judiciary Committee took notice of the controversy and notified Colorado officials in April that their immigration-related certification wrongly "commandeers private attorneys into Colorado's radical sanctuary policies." The committee's chairman, Rep. Tom McClintock, warned that the incident is just the latest example of sanctuary states' battle against federal supremacy.
McClintock expressed concern that the incident may be a harbinger of more aggressive actions by sanctuary jurisdictions. He noted that the state’s attempt to restrict attorney speech was a clear violation of the First Amendment.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) celebrated the news, saying that the certification requirement was a clear viewpoint-based regulation that violated the First Amendment. FIRE had been prepared to file a lawsuit against the state government if the provision had not been repealed.
Attorneys and free speech advocates have welcomed the change, arguing that the government cannot condition an attorney’s access to courts on a promise not to use information for a lawful purpose. As one attorney noted, private attorneys work for their clients, not the government.
The reversal has been seen as a significant win for free speech and the rights of attorneys. However, concerns remain about the ongoing battle between sanctuary states and federal authorities.
