By Shaina Cole | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
Colorado attorneys are starting to push back after a certification prompt began appearing when they log into the state’s court e-filing system.
The requirement traces back to Senate Bill 25-276 and related statutes, including C.R.S. § 24-74-105, which deal with how the state handles nonpublic personal identifying information. Under that law, access to certain data comes with a certification—made under penalty of perjury—about how it will be used.
On paper, the statute applies broadly to third parties accessing protected data. In practice, though, the certification has now been built into Colorado Courts E-Filing (CCE), meaning attorneys are being asked to agree to it just to get into the system.
What the law requires
Specifically, the statute requires that a user certify they “will not use personal identifying information… for the purpose of investigating for, participating in, cooperating with, or assisting in federal immigration enforcement,” and will not disclose that information for those purposes—unless required by federal or state law or to comply with a court-issued subpoena, warrant, or order.
The law further states that “to be granted access to personal identifying information… a third party must have… certified under penalty of perjury” to those conditions.
The law’s scope is defined in C.R.S. § 24-74-102, which outlines what qualifies as “nonpublic personal identifying information” and who is considered a third party accessing that data—triggering the certification requirement.
The restriction applies specifically to nonpublic personal identifying information—data not otherwise available in public court records. Public filings, which make up the majority of court documents, are not subject to the same limitation. The certification is tied to access to protected data fields within the system, rather than general participation in the court process.
A requirement tied to access
That certification is now embedded in Colorado Courts E-Filing (CCE). Users who decline are unable to proceed within the system.
For attorneys who rely on the platform to file documents, review case materials, and meet court deadlines, the practical implications are immediate.
On X, attorney Ian Speir said the requirement effectively forces attorneys to agree to a government-drafted statement unrelated to their work in order to continue representing clients.
“I do not practice immigration law. I do not practice criminal law. Nothing about my civil practice has anything to do with this,” Speir wrote. “And yet… I cannot log into the State’s official e-filing system without [accepting it].”
Speir said declining the certification blocks access to filings, case documents, and court records, raising concerns about meeting deadlines and fulfilling obligations to clients.
“I have ethical obligations to my clients… If I don’t click ‘Accept’… I will harm my clients, torpedo my practice, and probably commit malpractice,” he wrote. “So, I have no choice. I’m clicking ‘Accept’ under protest.”
Attorney Matt Barber posted a similar reaction on X after encountering the prompt, calling the requirement “indefensible” and sharing the state’s announcement outlining the policy.
Nearly everything in Colorado courts moves through the e-filing system. Motions, pleadings, exhibits—it all goes there. Without access, even basic things like filing a response or checking a case can fall apart quickly, especially when deadlines are involved. That’s why some attorneys say refusing the certification isn’t really a workable option.
The issue has begun drawing national attention, with outlets including Townhall highlighting attorney concerns about the certification requirement.
State justification and scope
According to the Judicial Department, the certification applies to non-government users who access protected data and is intended to enforce statutory limits on how that information can be used—not to restrict legal practice.
Supporters of the law have framed it as a data privacy safeguard, arguing that limiting the use of sensitive personal information—particularly in immigration-related contexts—is a legitimate function of state policy.
Still, the mechanism—linking that certification to access within the court’s e-filing system—has become the central point of dispute.
Because e-filing is mandatory for most cases in Colorado, attorneys argue that access to the system is not optional. In practice, they say, the certification functions as a prerequisite to representing clients in court.
The constitutional question
That has prompted some attorneys to raise a more technical constitutional question: whether the requirement amounts to compelled speech.
At the center of the dispute is a First Amendment concept known as compelled speech. In general, it refers to situations where the government requires someone to say or affirm something they otherwise wouldn’t—often as a condition of access to a benefit or system.
Courts have dealt with similar questions before. In one case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal requirement that forced organizations to adopt a specific policy position in order to receive funding.
Whether that same reasoning applies here is less clear. The certification in Colorado is tied to how certain data is used, not a broader statement of belief, and the issue would likely have to be tested in court before there’s a definitive answer.
What happens in practice
The certification does not prohibit cooperation with federal authorities when required by law, and it is limited to the use of nonpublic personal identifying information obtained through the system. But for attorneys encountering it at login, the issue is less theoretical than practical.
For attorneys, the choice is not abstract: accept the certification, or lose functional access to Colorado’s primary court filing system.
The requirement traces back to SB 25-276, passed by the legislature and signed into law as part of a broader set of data privacy and immigration-related restrictions. Implementation was delayed in 2025 while the Colorado Judicial Department reviewed how to integrate the law into its systems before rolling out the certification requirement through CCE.
As more attorneys encounter the certification prompt, the debate is shifting from what the law says to how it is being enforced—and whether tying that certification to core system access crosses a constitutional line.
![FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B[1]](https://rockymountainvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B1-300x300.png)