Colorado attorneys are facing a startling new requirement to access the state’s court e-filing system. They are now compelled to certify they will not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, a move sparking outrage and raising serious legal questions.
The demand stems from the Protect Civil Rights Immigration Status Act, a recently enacted Colorado law designed to shield individuals from immigration-related inquiries. This legislation restricts the collection and disclosure of immigration status information within healthcare, education, and government sectors.
Screenshots circulating online, purportedly from the court’s e-filing portal, reveal a stark message. Attorneys must “certify under penalty of perjury” that they won’t utilize any personal information obtained through the system to assist federal immigration authorities, including investigations related to specific federal statutes.
The certification presents a binary choice: “accept” or “decline.” For many attorneys, like Covenant Law founder Ian Speir, the situation is untenable. He found himself unable to access the system – and therefore unable to represent his clients – without agreeing to the terms, even though his practice has no connection to immigration law.
Speir argues that Colorado is effectively deputizing private attorneys to advance its “anti-federal sanctuary policies,” a claim that resonates with concerns about overreach and the blurring of lines between state and federal authority. He was forced to accept the terms “under protest” simply to fulfill his obligations to his clients.
Legal experts are voicing strong objections. Attorney and former law professor Matt Barber labeled the required oath “indefensible,” highlighting the ethical and legal dilemmas it presents for attorneys bound by professional obligations to uphold the law.
The Colorado Judicial Department initially paused implementation of the certification process last September for further review. However, it was reinstated on March 30th, with the agency clarifying that the requirement applies only to nonpublic personal identifying information.
Critics have drawn parallels to historical resistance against federal authority, with some referencing laws related to “seditious conspiracy” as a point of comparison. The situation has ignited a firestorm of debate, with many predicting significant legal challenges.
The 2025 law, championed by Democratic state senators, extends beyond the e-filing system. It also prohibits civil arrests at courthouses and restricts the entry of out-of-state military forces without the governor’s permission, unless acting under direct federal orders.
Furthermore, the law eliminates requirements for college applicants and driver’s license seekers to affirm they have applied for lawful presence in the U.S., signaling a broad commitment to protecting undocumented individuals within the state’s borders.
