A new session, same defiance: How Colorado’s immigration policy put ideology over enforcement

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

Colorado lawmakers are walking into the 2026 session with the budget already tight. They’re also bracing for more legal fights with Washington.

New bills tied to ICE enforcement are moving early, including one that would expand the state’s ability to sue over immigration-related rights claims.

That push comes as Colorado is already in federal court over immigration laws passed last session. In Senate Appropriations on April 11, Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer zeroed in on SB25-276‘s price tag, asking whether its costs would come out of the legislature’s roughly $7.5 million set-aside for new mandates and litigation risks. The answer was a quick “Yes”—no hesitation, no alternative funding source offered.

Democrats introduced Senate Bill 25-276 wrapped in emotion. There were tears. Poetry. Stories about immigrant grandparents fleeing hardship. What emerged after party-line votes was something else entirely. The bill no longer resembled the narrow “civil rights tweak” sponsors had promised.

Through committee hearings, floor debate and a concentrated series of amendments late in the session, SB25-276 expanded into a far-reaching public safety statute affecting schools, child care centers, libraries, health care and behavioral health facilities, jails, local governments—and state data systems. 

The bill did not drift in that direction. It was shaped there deliberately and it now sits at the center of an active federal lawsuit challenging Colorado’s approach to immigration enforcement.

A bill moved quickly, and with purpose

SB25-276 cleared the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on April 8 after hours of testimony, moved through Senate Appropriations on April 11 and passed second reading on the Senate floor on April 15. 

The bill was taken up out of order during Committee of the Whole and advanced with sponsor amendments that materially altered its scope.

As enacted, SB25-276 reaches well beyond immigration enforcement. 

The law extends restrictions on collecting and sharing personal information to cities and counties and their employees, not just state agencies. 

It also requires schools, public child care centers, health care facilities, behavioral health providers and publicly supported libraries to adopt formal protocols governing how staff respond when federal immigration authorities seek access.

The statute bars immigration agents from entering non-public areas of detention facilities without a judicial warrant, and clarifies that individuals may not be held beyond their lawful release time simply to facilitate civil immigration enforcement. 

It removes affidavit requirements tied to in-state tuition eligibility and immigrant driver’s licenses. SB25-276 also expands post-conviction relief allowing certain low-level convictions to be vacated when immigration consequences stem from unconstitutional pleas. And it declares large portions of the law matters of statewide concern, limiting local governments’ ability to adopt different policies.

Sponsors framed the bill as a matter of first principles.

“When it comes to Senate Bill 276, we are talking about the Constitution of the United States and ensuring that Coloradans’ due process rights, civil rights, and constitutional rights are protected,” Sen. Julie Gonzales said during second reading April 15. “The Constitution protects everyone regardless of where they were born or how long they’ve been here.”

Sen. Mike Weissman, a co-sponsor, framed the bill as a question of state authority. “We can’t control what the federal government does or does not do,” he said. “But we can control how we act here in Colorado.”

Sponsors adopted a series of amendments that widened the bill’s reach into libraries, behavioral health settings and treatment facilities. Sponsors also pared back reporting requirements tied to cost and compliance concerns.

Lawmakers rejected other amendments that would have restored some local discretion and eased limits on jail cooperation with federal immigration agents.

One amendment, offered by Sen. Matt Bright, sought to strike “public child care center” from the statute entirely—removing daycares from the bill’s mandatory protocols for handling federal immigration inquiries. After it failed in Committee of the Whole, Bright moved to amend the official report—a procedural effort that was also rejected by the chamber. 

That rare parliamentary challenge failed too, ensuring even child care facilities remained firmly under the bill’s broad restrictions.

SB25-276 arrived in the House largely intact. Amendments were brought forward to narrow it. None succeeded.

House debate and warnings of federal fallout

With the session nearing its end, the House debated SB25-276 on second reading May 2.

Critics didn’t pull punches, saying the bill would shield criminal aliens, weaken local control in rural counties and push new, unfunded mandates onto schools, daycares and libraries.

Rep. Jarvis Caldwell argued the bill went beyond a policy dispute. He warned colleagues it carried immediate legal and financial consequences.

“We are already being sued by the Department of Justice over these policies, and this bill increases the risk that Colorado will lose federal funding,” Caldwell said, urging lawmakers to slow down and reconsider the bill’s scope, warning of immediate legal and financial consequences.

Those warnings did not alter the outcome. Amendments tied to federal funding contingencies and local discretion were defeated and the bill advanced.

Both sides testified. Only one side mattered.

Teachers talked about empty classrooms. Doctors described patients staying home. District attorneys said fear was changing how people interact with local government.

Critics pushed back just as hard. They said the bill would undercut sheriffs, complicate jail operations and pull decisions away from counties—changes they warned carried public safety and budget risks.

The warnings didn’t fade as the bill advanced. They didn’t slow the Democrat majority.

By the time SB25-276 reached the governor’s desk, Colorado was already in federal court over existing limits on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

SB25-276 changed the posture of the case. After the bill passed, the federal government amended its complaint to argue the law added new limits on detainers, access and information sharing to an existing set of restrictions.

SB25-276 now moves from legislation to implementation—and litigation.  A federal judge has set a Jan. 29, 2026 court conference, with discovery on hold while motions to dismiss are considered.

The limits of this ideological policy will now be tested in court.

Coming next: How a Colorado resident followed the paper trail behind SB25-276.