Colorado Senate Democrats opened their 2026 legislative session January 14 by introducing Senate Bill 26-005—legislation designed to turn every immigration arrest in Colorado into a potential federal lawsuit. Sponsors Sen. Mike Weissman of Aurora and Sen. Julie Gonzales of Denver strip immunity protections from federal officers, guarantee attorney fees to plaintiffs, and create civil liability for enforcing immigration law.
The bill’s mechanics reveal its purpose. SB26-005 creates a statutory cause of action allowing anyone “injured during civil immigration enforcement” to sue federal officers who allegedly violate the U.S. Constitution. The violation standard is vague enough to challenge any arrest—probable cause disputes, detention reasonableness, use of force. Courts “shall” award attorney fees to prevailing plaintiffs, and for injunctive relief cases, plaintiffs “prevailed” if their lawsuit was merely a “substantial factor” in obtaining results. This guarantees financial incentive to sue even when officers acted lawfully.
The bill eliminates immunity protections to “the maximum extent permissible under the United States Constitution”—including the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act and common law protections. Federal officers enforcing federal law face discovery, depositions, and damages awards for split-second decisions Colorado courts will judge in hindsight. The two-year statute of limitations means officers can be sued years after incidents, defending judgment calls they made in real-time enforcement situations.
An ICE agent arrests someone in Denver following established protocols. Two years later, the person files a lawsuit claiming Fourth Amendment violations. Even if the agent prevails, years of litigation, depositions, and legal fees make Colorado enforcement uniquely burdensome. Some federal officers will avoid the state entirely. Others will conduct less enforcement, knowing every arrest carries litigation risk that doesn’t exist elsewhere. Colorado becomes more attractive for illegal immigrants with criminal records who understand federal enforcement here comes with built-in legal complications.
This isn’t Colorado Democrats’ first obstruction. In May 2025, the Trump Justice Department sued Colorado and Denver over sanctuary policies violating the Supremacy Clause. Denver’s City Ordinance 94-17 bars city employees from using funds to assist immigration enforcement, prohibits federal agents from secure jail areas without federal warrants, and refuses detention based on administrative warrants from ICE. State policies prevent agreements to detain immigrants in county jails, forcing transfers to Aurora. When the federal government sued, state officials declined to comment on merits but said they would follow court rulings—without withdrawing any challenged policies. The ACLU of Colorado defended the obstruction, arguing these policies “protect public safety” by ensuring illegal immigrants don’t fear deportation when reporting crimes.
SB26-005 adds another layer: personal liability for federal officers. Illinois enacted a nearly identical law in December 2025. The Trump Justice Department sued within weeks, arguing it violates the Supremacy Clause and “inevitably becomes a vehicle to threaten and harass federal officers.” The DOJ brief states threatening officers with “ruinous liability and even punitive damages for executing federal law chills the enforcement of federal law and compromises sensitive law enforcement operations.”
Legal experts examining state challenges to immigration enforcement call them “close to completely meritless.” Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig notes no precedent exists for courts blocking federal law enforcement from enforcing federal law in a given state. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause establishes federal immigration law overrides conflicting state laws. The Supreme Court has consistently held the federal government has plenary power over immigration.
Colorado will face the same lawsuit Illinois is fighting. Taxpayers will fund expensive litigation defending an indefensible legal position. If the law temporarily takes effect before a federal injunction, Colorado could face damages awards. Democrats know they’ll lose in court, but the litigation itself serves their purpose—complicating enforcement and generating resistance headlines.
Weissman told reporters federal agents’ tactics are “getting more violent, more shocking, more violative of legitimate expectations.” He offered no Colorado evidence. Democrats introduced this bill one week after an ICE agent shot a woman in Minneapolis during a confrontation—an incident Colorado Democrats had no connection to and Colorado voters didn’t elect them to address. Weissman and Gonzales are positioning as Trump resistance leaders for 2026 elections, prioritizing national political messaging over state law enforcement needs.
The bill will pass—Democrats have the majority and signaled this as priority legislation by introducing it opening day. Trump DOJ will sue within weeks of enactment. A federal court will issue a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement. Immigration enforcement in Colorado becomes more complicated and dangerous while taxpayers fund litigation Democrats know they’ll lose. Communities pay with reduced federal law enforcement protection while sponsors collect campaign contributions from immigration advocacy groups.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 