SB26-005: Colorado Bill Opens State Suits for ICE-Related Rights Violations—Even Against Private Actors

By Shaina Cole | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice

Colorado lawmakers have introduced Senate Bill 26-005—legislation that would allow lawsuits in state court when an individual claims their rights under federal law have been violated as a result of civil immigration law enforcement.

This bill creates a new state-level cause of action tied specifically to immigration enforcement activity. Its reach is broad. The text applies to “any person whether or not under color of law,” language pulled directly from the bill as introduced.

The prime sponsors of the bill are Sen. Mike Weissman, Sen. Julie Gonzales, Rep. Javier Mabrey, and Rep. Yara Zokaie. It has been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee—which Weissman chairs. That matters. He will be able to control how fast it moves and what amendments are allowed.

How wide the bill’s reach really is

SB26-005 does not limit liability to government officials. The statute explicitly applies to “any person, whether or not acting under color of law.” Unlike traditional civil-rights laws that focus on state actors, this language reaches much further.

The bill also leaves key terms undefined. It does not spell out what counts as “participation” in immigration enforcement. It does not require intent. It does not require knowledge. It does not require willful misconduct.

Although the bill carves out an exception for Colorado peace officers acting ‘within the scope of their duties consistent with state law,’ sheriffs warn that the vague language still leaves officers vulnerable to costly lawsuits over any perceived overlap with federal enforcement.

In practice, that means the line between direct enforcement and peripheral involvement is left to litigation after the fact. An officer making an arrest, a contractor supporting a lawful operation, or a private individual whose actions are later described as assistance could all fall within the statute’s scope.

The bill also includes mandatory attorney-fee shifting. If a plaintiff prevails, the defendant must pay the plaintiff’s legal fees, as set out in the introduced bill text. That structure shifts financial risk early and heavily onto defendants, who must often litigate scope and immunity issues long before a judge ever reaches the merits of a claim.

Existing law already restricts participation

Douglas County Sheriff Darren M. Weekly addressed SB26-005 in a written statement provided directly to Rocky Mountain Voice via email.

“The bill’s broad language, applying to ‘any person whether or not under color of law,’ invites expansive litigation against officers, task-force partners, and others involved in lawful enforcement activities,” Weekly wrote. “The mandatory attorney-fee provisions incentivize lawsuits regardless of merit and will discourage officers from doing their jobs.”

Weekly pointed out that Colorado already restricts law enforcement from working with ICE.

In 2021 SB21-131 was passed. It prohibits state and local officials from arresting or detaining someone solely based on a civil immigration detainer. It also restricts information sharing with federal authorities, unless specific legal conditions are met. 

“Colorado law already severely restricts local law enforcement’s ability to work with ICE,” Weekly wrote. “Those restrictions effectively cement Colorado’s sanctuary-state status, regardless of rhetoric to the contrary.”

That framework is at the center of an ongoing federal lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice, which amended its complaint last summer to challenge several state laws—among them SB21-131 and HB23-1100—along with Denver policies that sharply limit cooperation with immigration authorities. 

As reported by Colorado Politics, the amended filing also pushed back against Attorney General Phil Weiser’s separate action against a Mesa County deputy who shared routine information with ICE after a traffic stop, an episode the DOJ argues exemplifies how Colorado’s restrictions hinder federal enforcement and force officers into an impossible position.

Why SB26-005 changes the equation

Sheriff Darren Weekly stated existing law already provides avenues to address constitutional violations.

“Existing legal remedies already protect constitutional rights for everyone, regardless of immigration status,” he wrote. “SB26-005 does not fix a legal gap. It’s specifically designed to create a chilling effect that further reduces cooperation with federal partners and weakens public safety.”

He tied that concern directly to day-to-day law enforcement work.

“As Sheriff, my responsibility is to protect the community and go after violent criminals, drug traffickers, and organized crime,” Weekly wrote. “That work requires cooperation with federal law enforcement. SB26-005 further moves Colorado in the wrong direction and makes our communities less safe.”

Unlike earlier statutes that set boundaries on what agencies may do, SB26-005 adds a new layer: litigation risk. It does so on top of already-existing restrictions and extends that risk beyond law enforcement agencies themselves.

What cooperation looks like on the ground

The level of collaboration between local and federal bodies ultimately impacts the extent of immigration enforcement.

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ensures that Immigration and Customs Enforcement enter into formal agreements with other agencies at a state or local level. Trained local officers are authorized to assist with certain enforcement functions under federal supervision. 

ICE describes these partnerships as force multipliers that allow enforcement to occur during custodial processing and transfers rather than through at-large arrests in neighborhoods.

In Colorado, Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell has kept one of the state’s few active 287(g) partnerships going—pushing ahead last year with updated procedures after a court resolution limited prolonged holds for ICE—arguing it lets deputies zero in on serious criminal offenders already in custody, without resorting to operations in public spaces.

In places without cooperation agreements, ICE must operate independently. That often means arrests in public spaces, workplaces, or residential areas. Those operations are more visible and more likely to intersect with protests or obstruction, as seen in Minneapolis.

Why this doesn’t just affect law enforcement

Because SB26-005 applies to “any person,” its reach is not confined to officers or agencies. The statute could extend to property managers who grant access after receiving a lawful warrant, contractors providing services to joint task forces, or private citizens whose actions are later characterized as participation. The cost and burden of litigation remains regardless of lawsuit outcomes.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States clarified that states cannot impose additional penalties or deterrents that obstruct federal immigration enforcement, even indirectly. The ruling stressed the need for national uniformity, warning that state actions cannot undermine federal goals through indirect means. 

Applied here, the bill’s threat of private lawsuits could similarly chill the local-federal partnerships that support effective enforcement.

What comes next

Now that SB26-005 sits before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it will be decided whether it advances as written, is amended—or stalls. With the committee chaired by one of the bill’s prime sponsors and existing immigration restrictions already under federal challenge, the committee stage will largely determine how far the bill ultimately reaches.

Rocky Mountain Voice requested comment from the bill’s Senate sponsors, Sens. Mike Weissman and Julie Gonzales. As of publication, no responses were received.