Colorado’s court system is now forcing private lawyers to swear—under penalty of perjury—that they won’t help federal immigration enforcement, turning basic access to the courts into a political loyalty test.
Quick Take
- Colorado began requiring private attorneys on March 30, 2026 to certify they will not use or share certain non-public court-record information to assist federal immigration enforcement unless required by law or court order.
- Lawyers who refuse the certification can be blocked from the state’s Courts E-Filing system, limiting access to filings, case documents, and routine participation in court.
- The mandate stems from Senate Bill 25-276, signed by Gov. Jared Polis in 2025, extending “sanctuary-style” restrictions into the Judicial Branch.
- Government attorneys are exempt from the requirement, creating a two-tier system for who must make the pledge to use the courts.
Colorado ties court access to a sworn pledge
Colorado’s Judicial Branch has implemented a new certification step inside its Courts E-Filing system that applies to private attorneys statewide. Beginning March 30, 2026, lawyers logging in must certify, under penalty of perjury, that they will not use or share certain non-public personal information from court records to assist federal immigration enforcement actions, including enforcement tied to illegal entry or reentry statutes, unless required by law or a court order. Refusal can effectively lock lawyers out of the e-filing workflow.
The practical leverage point is the platform itself. Courts E-Filing is not a minor convenience in modern legal practice; it is the gateway for filing pleadings, reviewing case documents, and meeting deadlines. When the state makes that access conditional on a policy certification, it changes the relationship between the attorney and the court from procedural compliance to ideological compliance. The available reporting does not provide data on how many attorneys refused or how often access was denied after rollout.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qPQ8Q6iORk
SB 25-276 extends “sanctuary” rules into the judiciary
The rule traces back to Senate Bill 25-276, signed May 23, 2025 by Gov. Jared Polis after passage by Colorado’s Democratic legislature. The stated objective, as described in the available research, is to prevent the use of state resources for federal civil immigration enforcement. That approach had already shaped Colorado’s broader posture toward federal immigration cooperation. The current twist is structural: the policy is embedded into the judiciary’s own administrative systems rather than limited to executive agencies.
The Colorado Judicial Branch has acknowledged public frustration while also stating it is required to comply with the legislation. The reporting also references a recent federal court decision dismissing a Trump administration lawsuit challenging similar state restrictions, with the court ruling that states cannot be forced to assist federal immigration enforcement. That precedent matters because it suggests the central fight is less about whether Washington can command state cooperation and more about whether Colorado can condition court access on a sworn statement by private citizens.
A two-tier rule: private lawyers must swear, government lawyers don’t
One of the most striking elements is the exemption for government attorneys. Private lawyers—whether they handle divorces, personal injury, contracts, or criminal defense—must make the certification to function in the system, while government lawyers are not held to the same login pledge. The research characterizes the requirement as applying far beyond immigration practice, meaning attorneys with no immigration caseload are still compelled to affirm they will not assist federal enforcement using non-public court information.
That asymmetry creates a reasonable question about equal treatment inside a court system that should be neutral. Courts exist to apply law fairly, not to sort participants into classes based on whether they work for the state. The available research does not include a detailed explanation for the exemption or how it was justified during legislative debate. What is clear is the operational result: the state imposes a sworn condition on one set of legal professionals while sparing another.
Compelled speech concerns collide with state-federal tensions
Critics cited in the research argue the certification resembles compelled speech and functions as a barrier to court access. Supporters point to state autonomy and civil-rights protections for immigrants, especially given legal limits on forcing state cooperation with federal enforcement. From a constitutional perspective, the unresolved tension is whether a state can require a private attorney to affirmatively certify a policy position as the price of entering a government system essential to practicing law. The research does not report any new lawsuit filed specifically over this certification.
Sources:
Colorado Forces Lawyers To Swear They Won’t Help Feds Nab Illegals
