Concerning state court remedies for violations of federal constitutional rights occurring during immigration enforcement, and, in connection therewith, making an appropriation.
SB26-005 creates a new Colorado state-law civil cause of action for a person whose federal constitutional rights are violated during civil immigration enforcement. The bill allows an injured person to sue the person whose conduct proximately caused the violation, whether or not that person was acting under color of federal, state, or local law, and authorizes legal, equitable, or other appropriate relief. It also requires courts to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs, permits fee awards to defendants for frivolous claims, and sets a two-year statute of limitations.
The bill defines “civil immigration enforcement” broadly to include actions to investigate, question, detain, transfer, or arrest a person for the purpose of enforcing federal civil immigration law, while excluding actions by peace officers acting within the scope of their duties consistent with state law. It also states that various immunity doctrines, including sovereign immunity, official immunity, qualified immunity, supremacy clause immunity, statutory immunity, and common-law immunity, do not apply to actions brought under the new section to the maximum extent constitutionally permissible. The bill includes a severability clause and an appropriation of $125,604 and 0.5 FTE to the Department of Law for implementation.
The bill’s impact on Colorado law is to add a new statutory remedy in Title 13 for constitutional violations tied specifically to immigration enforcement and to amend the general limitations statute to include this new claim in the two-year filing period. It also directs state resources to support implementation through the Department of Law. In practical terms, the measure would expand potential civil liability for individuals involved in immigration enforcement activities and create a state forum for damages and injunctive relief claims based on alleged federal constitutional violations.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly supportive of creating state-level accountability for constitutional violations during immigration enforcement. The legislative declaration emphasizes Colorado’s role in providing a forum for these claims and cites federal and Supreme Court precedent to justify the remedy. The bill’s progression to the governor’s desk, followed by a veto, suggests the measure was significant and likely controversial, even though no committee transcript or vote record is provided here.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s attempt to limit or displace immunity defenses and its application to conduct occurring during civil immigration enforcement, which could be seen as exposing federal, state, or local actors to broader civil liability. Supporters appear to view the bill as a necessary accountability mechanism for constitutional rights violations, while opponents would likely object to the breadth of the cause of action, the fee-shifting provisions, and the assertion that immunity doctrines should not apply. The exclusion for peace officers acting consistently with state law suggests an effort to narrow the bill’s reach, but the overall structure still targets a sensitive area of law enforcement and federal-state authority.
The bill would add section 13-20-1302 to the Colorado Revised Statutes, creating a new civil remedy for constitutional violations occurring during civil immigration enforcement and expressly limiting the availability of immunity defenses in those cases. It also amends the general statute of limitations in section 13-80-102 to make these claims subject to a two-year filing deadline. In addition, it appropriates funds to the Department of Law to support implementation, affecting state fiscal and legal-services operations.
The bill appears to have been framed by its sponsors as a civil-rights and accountability measure, with a strong policy statement favoring state-court remedies for constitutional violations during immigration enforcement. The absence of recorded committee testimony or votes limits direct insight into debate, but the bill’s eventual gubernatorial veto indicates that it was politically contentious. Overall, the available context suggests support among proponents for expanded remedies and skepticism or opposition from those concerned about immigration-enforcement liability and immunity limits.
The most notable dispute centers on whether Colorado should create a state cause of action that reaches conduct during civil immigration enforcement and overrides common immunity defenses. Supporters likely argue that people need an effective remedy when constitutional rights are violated, while critics would likely focus on federal supremacy, potential interference with immigration enforcement, and the bill’s broad liability exposure for officers or other participants. The fee-shifting provisions and the express rejection of sovereign, qualified, and supremacy-clause immunity are additional flashpoints, as is the bill’s application to conduct by persons acting under color of federal, state, or local law.