DOJ Sues Colorado, Denver Over Sanctuary Laws
The DOJ accused the state and city of having laws structured “by intent and design [to] interfere with and discriminate against the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law.”
The Department of Justice sued Colorado and the city of Denver over their sanctuary laws.
The DOJ claims the laws violate the Supremacy clause in three ways: preemption, unlawful discrimination against the federal government, and unlawful regulation of the federal government.
The defendants include Gov. Jared Polis, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, Attorney General Phil Weiser, and Sheriff Elias Diggins.
The lawsuit, filed in the Colorado District Court, accused the state and city of having laws structured “by intent and design [to] interfere with and discriminate against the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law.”
“Foremost, federal immigration law expressly preempts state and local laws that restrict sharing information ‘regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, or any individual,’ 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a), which broadly encompasses, among other things, ‘the presence, whereabouts, or activities’ of aliens with the Federal Government. H.R. Rep. No. 725, 104th Cong., 2d. Sess. 383 (1996),” wrote the DOJ.
Colorado became ground zero over illegal immigration last summer after a video showed Tren de Aragua (TdA) members taking over an apartment complex in Aurora, CO.
Officials tried to dismiss the videos until the Aurora police confessed they had arrested TdA members.
The DOJ cited three Colorado state laws:
- House Bill 19-1124, “Protect Colorado Residents From Federal Government Overreach,” bans the state from holding an inmate requested by immigration authorities, saying that makes it warrantless, “which is unconstitutional” (no, it is not). It also limits federal immigration authorities’ access and makes it harder for them to arrange interviews.
- Senate Bill 21-131 bans the sharing of “personal identifying information” that would assist federal immigration enforcement, state agency employees from asking for documents to determine the person’s immigration status, and limits access to databases and automated information in Colorado.
- House Bill 23-1100 stops law enforcement “from entering into or renewing an ‘immigration detention agreement’ starting on January 1, 2024.”
Then there are two Denver laws:
- City Ordinance No. 940-17, the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act limits local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
- Denver Executive Order No. 142 made the city “safe and welcoming” to everyone by forcing all city agencies to comply with the above ordinance
“These provisions are an obstacle to the Federal Government’s enforcement of the immigration laws and discriminate against federal immigration enforcement, as well as (with respect to the information-sharing and maintenance restrictions) expressly violate 8 U.S.C. § 1373,” stated the DOJ. “In rejecting congressionally authorized means of enforcing federal immigration law, including detainers and administrative warrants, these provisions constitute unlawful direct regulation of the Federal Government.”
The DOJ reminded the court that the laws cited hinder the federal government to interview those in state custody despite the Immigration and Nationality Act saying the people “shall be inspected by immigration officers.”
The agency also said the laws violate federal law by prohibiting state and local law enforcement from sharing personal information with the feds.
“Federal agents are required to detain illegal aliens who have committed certain offenses upon their release from state custody,” noted the DOJ. “Congress not only recently reaffirmed its commitment to this mandate, but also augmented the authority of federal agents in this space by adding predicate offenses that trigger this detention requirement.”
The DOJ lashed out over the Denver ordinance, which impedes the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws, mentioning how the ICE immigration detention facility in Aurora is the only facility ICE can use to detain individuals in the state.
“Colorado House Bill 19-1124, Senate Bill 21-131, and House Bill 23-1100 impede the Federal Government’s ability to regulate immigration and take enforcement actions against illegal aliens by preventing state law enforcement officials from assisting with federal civil immigration enforcement,” argued the DOJ. “Under these laws, state officers are explicitly prohibited from complying with immigration detainers or civil immigration warrants; they are also prevented from sharing critical immigration information, and from entering into or renewing agreements to detain noncitizens for federal civil immigration violations.”
Johnston told 9NEWS: “Denver will not be bullied or blackmailed, least of all by an administration that has little regard for the law and even less for the truth. Denver follows all laws local, state, and federal and stands ready to defend its values.”
A spokesperson from Weiser’s office said: “Colorado is not a sanctuary state. The State of Colorado works with local, state and federal law enforcement regularly and we value our partnerships with local, county and federal law enforcement agencies to make Colorado safer. If the courts say that any Colorado law is not valid then we will follow the ruling. We are not going to comment on the merits of the lawsuit.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
excellent
meanwhile blue cities hosting trende’s and their brawling gangs
Migrant Tren de Aragua-linked punks brawl with NYPD cops in wild Times Square melee
nypost
meanwhile at the milken institute conference
the (mostly) leftists big mouths are chastizing trump ( of course over immigration stating
but they are the brains behind our innovations ..( ignoring the milllions that arent even close to that) so let them all in ,,they are stating
AND THEN
screaming
we must have money for cancer research not to be cut BUT WE DEMAND A LOWERING OF THE NATIONAL DEBT
lefty has america splintered with their goal of government run still in charge
and these takeovers of cities by lefty armies are being supported by local communistnazis
Dem Gov of NM saying that the feds must come in and clean up the streets but not make any mistakes in deportations
until we STOP TAX MONEY FLOWING TO THESE STATES
GOOD AMERICANS will continue to be held hostage by lefty
These brazenly lawless “sanctuary cities” and the Dhimmi-crat apparatchiks who run them have been flouting federal law for far too long, with zero accountability and repercussions.
It’s time to swing the big hammer and Make Some Examples. Hope they find a way to work in some 4AM door busting on some lefty politicians for a change. Not fair for conservatives to have all that fun.
They are not lawless. They are exercising an undisputed constitutional right, that the courts have upheld for over two centuries. The anti-commandeering doctrine is a fundamental part of our federal system, and the states are certainly not going to ratify an amendment to overturn it.
Traitors traitors everywhere
Off subject but just as nauseating
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/05/mike-pence-collects-profile-courage-award-j6-betrayal/
Would have been much better if they had also included something about depriving their citizens of civil rights under color of authority. Since favoring one class of people with enforcement is a violation of the people’s rights.
That would have been an even more frivolous claim than the ones they’re making. No citizen has ever been deprived of any right by such a law. No sanctuary jurisdiction “favors one class of people with enforcement”.
First, Congratulations Mary for graduating from Seton Hall Law School
Second, please let this lawsuit be successful. I am tired of the nutters winning.
Meh, another civil lawsuit between layers of government. I’d like to see more criminal cases and perp walks. The two judges were a good start.
My thoughts exactly. Arrest and jail is what we want for those insurrectionists which defy the constitution.
““Colorado is not a sanctuary state. The State of Colorado works with local, state and federal law enforcement regularly and we value our partnerships with local, county and federal law enforcement agencies to make Colorado safer. If the courts say that any Colorado law is not valid then we will follow the ruling.”
If Colorado is “not a sanctuary state,” then to which laws is Johnston referring when he admits that some “Colorado law” may be declared “not valid” due to DOJ’s suit against “sanctuary” laws? If Colorado’s laws don’t create sanctuaries for illegal aliens, how can they possibly be found “not valid” by a court considering the legality of laws that create sanctuaries?
Democrat ruled polities in this country do not consider themselves necessarily subject to the Constitution, Federal law, or American culture. They will avoid them at every opportunity.
Subotai Bahadur
Well, apparently the DOJ now doesn’t consider itself necessarily subject to the constitution, or to American culture, since it’s rejecting constitutional principles that have been regarded as fundamental since the beginning of the republic.
I wish once again that I knew more law – surely Colorado’s (and Denver’s) government did not implement these laws in a vacuum; they must have done research a-priori and believe that they have a defendable path through the requirements of the federal laws. I could believe that Denver might not have spent much researching their local laws but Colorado certainly would have a constitutional lawyer on staff….
So, lawyers/Devil’s Advocates (but I repeat myself) – what plausible defenses could there be?
The defense is very simple and obvious. It is a fundamental principle of our federal system that the USA may not commandeer the states to enforce its laws or do its bidding. States have an absolute right to refuse to cooperate with the federal government, or with Congress, and to make laws forbidding their officers from doing so voluntarily, and Congress cannot make any law to compel them. This has been upheld again and again, from the fugitive slave laws, through prohibition, to the Brady Act and 0bamacare.
What is the difference between ICE and the slave-catchers of the 1830s? States could not interfere with slave-catchers, but they could refuse them any assistance, and could make laws forbidding all state and local officers from assisting them in any way. So why can’t they do so to ICE?
States could not be compelled to enforce prohibition. Anti-prohibition states refused to enforce it, and the feds had to choose between letting it slide in those states, or enforcing it themselves with no local cooperation.
Surely you remember the sheriffs who refused to conduct background checks for the feds, while the NICS system was being set up. The Supreme Court upheld their right to refuse.
Likewise when Congress passed the 0bamacare Act requiring states to establish their own exchanges, on the penalty of losing federal medicare funding, the Supreme Court rejected that provision and said Congress not only can’t order the states around, but also can’t use funding to compel them to do as Congress wishes. It can use small cuts to persuade them, but cuts so big that the states can’t afford to absorb them, and are thus coerced to do Congress’s bidding, are unconstitutional.
Likely some Federal judge(s) will declare these law suits invalid and dismiss them.
It does say something for the perceived legitimacy of a system when it it is not irrational to have to consider the working assumption that those in charge of the judicial system operate on the basis of power politics and not the rules of the game.
Subotai Bahadur
It is invalid and should be dismissed.
IMO the way to proceed is to…..proceed. IOW show up and when obstructions are raised by City/State employees then on the spot make an arrest for obstruction and keep arresting folks until either the building is empty, they give up their policy making bosses for alternative arrest or they cooperate.
No one is obstructing them. They are merely refusing them assistance, as is their constitutional right. Even if they want to help, the state has the right to compel them not to.
Where anyone undertakes an action with the purpose of assisting illegal Aliens in remaining undetected or to evade ICE that’s at first blush obstruction. ICE goes to a public place and employees seek to delay ICE lawful entry, distract them or otherwise impede the efforts to make an arrest that’s not a passive stance. If the employees simply STFU and get out of the way then sure that’s not obstruction nut that’s not what’s alleged here. Any policy put in place to impede ICE v other LEO would also qualify as.obstruction; other Federal,.State,.Local LEO get.to come and go without issue but ICE.shows up and suddenly there’s a problem with letting them walk inside? Nah that’s not gonna fly. If they make it a universal policy applicable to all Federal, State Local LEO and not specific to ICE then that’s fine.
Yes, it is exactly what’s alleged here. They’re not doing anything to stop ICE, they’re just refusing to help them, give them information, allow them into places without a warrant, and the like.
That is wrong. It’s the state’s privilege, or the city’s as a division of the state. Other federal forces get cooperation, slave catchers don’t. The FBI gets cooperation when it’s looking for kidnappers, but not when it’s looking for bootleggers. Sheriffs will gladly give the FBI information about someone for a background check if he’s being considered for office, but not if all he wants to do is buy a gun.
IMO the creation and implementation of policies and statutes to impede ICE alone out of the plethora of Federal LEO is itself evidence of intent to obstruct ICE from casting out its mission. What other purpose could it have when it doesn’t apply in a general way to all Federal LEO?
Simple.solution. Require all State/Local LEO partners in any Federal Joint TF to be sworn as ICE agents instead of the normal Deputy US Marshal. Then require cooperation with Federal LEO and Federal grants for LEO, prisons, access to crime labs on an all or none basis. IOW a reciprocal response from the Feds. Of.course that would include security funding for additional LEO the State/Local gov’t don’t fund and additional LEO and intel support for things like airports, seaports and infrastructure.
No State or local.gov’t is entitled to any Federal grants, federal program $,.access to Federal goodies like Intel, databases, crime labs. To receive them they must comply with actions. They can always refuse to take the $ and by doing so also refuse the conditions they find onerous. To try and argue that funding can’t be removed is at odds with Congressional Power of the purse and would in practice allow a State to turn the rest of the Nations taxpayers into serfs/slaves who have no political power/voice to stop their funds being taken.
It’s a frivolous lawsuit. 8 USC § 1373(a) is unconstitutional. The courts have held for more than two centuries that the tenth amendment protects a state’s right to make precisely such laws. States may refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement, and they may prohibit their officers from doing so.
They can but they didn’t. Instead they created a special set of policies re ICE that don’t seem to be applied to the rest of the Federal LEO universe. Now if a State was willing to simply.say ‘the heck with EVERY Federal LEO Agency then sure but carving out a specific position v ICE alone undercuts the argument and absolutely ends any principled argument about State’s Rights in the context of cooperation with Federal LEO.
That’s not how it works. It’s the state’s right to choose when it wants to cooperate with federal forces and when it doesn’t. And when it wants to give its officers a choice whether to cooperate and when it wants either to require them or to forbid them to do so.
The problem with that argument is that also concedes that there’s not a principled stand or desire to assert independence from Federal LEO and their operations in general as infringement upon the State. Instead by limiting it to ICE they reveal their bias against immigration laws and their enforcement which can logically have only one purpose; to assist illegal Aliens in remaining in the Nation by impeding/obstructing ICE.
The whole point of the tenth amendment right is that states are have every right to oppose a federal policy. Colorado is taking a principled stand; it’s not asserting independence for independence’s sake, it’s asserting independence for the sake of not helping to enforce what it believes to be a wrong and evil law. That is precisely what the tenth amendment protects.
And no, they are not impeding or obstructing ICE. ICE is completely free to operate in Colorado, without hindrance or obstruction. But it must do so relying entirely on its own resources, not those of the state. Just as the federal slave-catchers were free to operate in Pennsylvania, without the assistance of any state officers or resources.