There’s a law here in Colorado that mandates that attorneys who use the e-file case system must first agree that they won’t provide any information to ICE.

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.

This is taking sanctuary state status to a whole new level. And yes, CO is a sanctuary state.

Lest you think people are misreading this new law, attorneys are making themselves very clear that the implementation of SB 25-276 has stepped way over multiple ethical and even federal law lines. 

Colorado is now requiring lawyers in the State, as a condition of logging into its court e-filing system, to promise not to cooperate with federal authorities in enforcing federal immigration law.

Please understand:
– I do not practice immigration law.
– I do not practice… pic.twitter.com/khYDf5TkQd

— Ian Speir (@IanSpeir) April 2, 2026

Ian’s full post on X reads: 

Please understand:
– I do not practice immigration law.
– I do not practice criminal law.
– Nothing about my civil practice has anything to do with this.

And yet because I cannot log into the State’s official e-filing system without saluting The Resistance, I now cannot represent my clients, file lawsuits, access cases, file documents in existing cases, etc.

If I click “Decline,” it kicks me out of the system. I must click “Accept” to access the system and continue representing my civil clients — again, in cases that have absolutely nothing to do with immigration law or policy.

I’ve read SB 25-276 (the law referred to below). It does not regulate me as a private attorney or any of the clients I represent in civil matters. This is outrageous draconian overreach.

I have ethical obligations to my clients to represent them competently. My existing cases have running deadlines that I must attend to. Judges issue orders in my cases that I must follow. If I don’t click “Accept” in order to access the State’s e-filing system, I will harm my clients, torpedo my practice, and probably commit malpractice. So, I have no choice.

I’m clicking “Accept” under protest.

They have it set up that the ONLY way to get into the system to file one’s case, upload witness statements, work to set court dates, etc is to accept this mandate, or they are locked out of the system. 

As of last fall, due to some attorneys pointing the issue out, quite a number of folks thought it was resolved. 

On Friday, attorneys trying to access Colorado’s court filing system were ambushed — by the state’s sanctuary policies for illegal immigrants.

Without warning, a popup “Disclaimer User Agreement” demanded lawyers pledge “under penalty of perjury” not to help ICE access personal identifying information from the system, unless required by law or court order.

It offered two choices: accept or decline. But declining locked them out of the only way to file with state courts. The prompt kept reappearing. Attorneys against a deadline had no choice — accept the pledge or fail their clients.

“I had a filing and literally couldn’t do it until I accepted,” said attorney Suzanne Taheri, who previously served as Colorado’s deputy secretary of state from 2012 through 2018. “I tried to decline, and it sent me back to the login.”

~Snip

By Saturday morning, the system’s announcements asserted it was a “one-time user agreement” meant to “comply with Colorado Senate Bill 25-276,” this year’s sanctuary law, because it restricts “how users may use or disclose personal identifying information obtained from state systems for immigration enforcement purposes.”

Except SB276 never mentions attorneys. The word “perjury” isn’t even in statute, either — let alone anything to do with an oath. There’s zero authority for this disclaimer.

The announcement even spelled out the coercive motives: Users had to “acknowledge the restriction before continuing” or lose access entirely. Responses were recorded, so they wouldn’t be prompted again. By Sunday, even that announcement was gone.

Instead, the mandate was quietly reimplemented last week.

I'll be damned. I practice law here in Colorado as well. Just logged in. Here's the text of their "announcement." This is indefensible. pic.twitter.com/XPPIFHLasT

— Matt Barber (@ThatMattBarber) April 2, 2026

As Matt Barber points out in a subsequent X post, attorneys who file within the state system must essentially swear under oath that no information, especially pertaining to federal immigration proceedings, will be shared with the feds. 

That my friends, is COERCION.

Keep in mind, e-filing is mandatory in Colorado.

It is quite troubling that lawyers–officers of the Court–are being asked to potentially defy federal law as a condition of practice. Probably worth close scrutiny from the Civil Rights team at @TheJusticeDept (CC: @HarmeetKDhillon & @JesusOseteDOJ ) https://t.co/VogSBMvIbC

— Eric W. (@EWess92) April 3, 2026

So this “requirement” is also raising Constitutional concerns. 

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.

Again, e-filing is mandatory in Colorado. Now attorneys must “agree” to not share information with federal officers, otherwise they are locked out of the system. Which puts them and ESPECIALLY their clients at a huge disadvantage. 

Feature Photo Credit: Colorado sign via iStock, cropped and modified