Congress Presses Colorado Court Rule on Immigration Enforcement

The Denver Gazette, in a report by Nicole C. Brambila, lays out a fight now moving from Colorado’s political class into the national spotlight. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee is pressing Colorado’s court administrator over a new rule requiring attorneys who access the state’s electronic court filing system to certify that they will not use court data to assist federal immigration enforcement.

The article explains that the rule stems from a 2025 Colorado law that expanded existing restrictions on sharing identifying information for immigration enforcement purposes and extended those restrictions to the judicial branch. As a result, attorneys seeking access to non-public court records now must make that certification under penalty of perjury. Congressional Republicans argue that requirement obstructs federal law, compels political speech, and drags private attorneys into the service of Colorado’s sanctuary-style agenda.

Brambila also notes that even some people aligned with the broader privacy rationale are uneasy with how this has played out. State Sen. Julie Gonzales said the judicial branch’s application of the certification was not the legislature’s intent and should be fixed legislatively, while a First Amendment lawyer quoted in the piece said the requirement appears unconstitutional on viewpoint-discrimination grounds.

The Bullet Point Brief

• Congress is asking Colorado’s court administrator to explain a rule that forces attorneys to certify they will not use court-system information to assist federal immigration enforcement. Because apparently practicing law in Colorado now comes with a loyalty oath.
• The rule grew out of a 2025 law that expanded earlier restrictions on sharing personal information for immigration enforcement and applied them to the judicial branch too. Leave it to the Gold Dome to turn court access into a political land mine.
• House Judiciary leaders Jim Jordan and Tom McClintock say the certification obstructs federal law, undermines attorneys’ ethical duties, and helps illegal aliens remain in Colorado indefinitely. Strong language, yes. Hard to say the concern is misplaced.
• Even one of the bill’s Democratic backers said this specific judicial-branch application was not the intent and needs to be addressed legislatively. That is a polite way of saying the thing blew past the guardrails.
• A First Amendment attorney quoted in the article said the rule is likely unconstitutional because it conditions access to a public resource on viewpoint-based speech. Translation: Colorado may have gotten so carried away with virtue signaling that it wandered into compelled-speech territory.

My Bottom Line

Congress should absolutely press Colorado on this. The claim that Colorado is not a sanctuary state is pure hogwash. When you stack law on top of policy on top of procedure, all designed to make cooperation with federal immigration enforcement harder, you do not get to hide behind some cute semantic dodge and pretend the label does not fit.

What makes this one especially galling is that the state has now managed to put attorneys in a legal and ethical vise. These are not lawmakers grandstanding on the House floor. These are practicing lawyers trying to do their jobs, serve clients, and access court records. Colorado’s ruling class has decided they should first stop and effectively recite the approved ideological pledge. That is not serious governance. That is performative politics with a law license caught in the gears.

And let’s be honest about the mentality here. The virtue signalers under the Gold Dome are so committed to their immigration posture that they are willing to tangle with federal law, stress the constitutional limits of compelled speech, and create confusion for the very legal system they claim to defend. That is what happens when ideology outranks prudence, humility, and plain old common sense.

Colorado officials want all the swagger of a sanctuary state without having to admit they built one. Fine. Then Congress can do the admitting for them. If state leaders are going to place progressive signaling above federal enforcement and force lawyers into legal quandaries along the way, they deserve every bit of scrutiny coming their direction.

Source: The Denver Gazette