Colorado lawmakers are advancing a bill that would empower residents to sue federal immigration agents in state court if their rights are violated.
This bill is similar to legislation proposed in other states amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigrants.
A panel of state legislators advanced Senate Bill 5 on Monday, according to The Denver Gazette. The measure would allow for “legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief” if an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violates a person’s Constitutional rights while engaging in immigration enforcement actions.
ICE is not above the law. That’s why I introduced the No Kings Act, a bill that lets Californians sue federal agents when they violate your constitutional rights.
— Senator Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) January 17, 2026
It just passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 8–2. Accountability soon. pic.twitter.com/fPe4JIco52
Several other states are considering similar legislation. California’s Senate passed the “No Kings Act” last month, which would create new avenues under state law for people to file lawsuits against federal officials — including ICE agents. Illinois became the first state to enact such a law in December.
The Trump administration is pushing back on Illinois’ law in court. The Justice Department argues that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and that threatening officers with liability for carrying out their duties “chills the enforcement of federal law and compromises sensitive law enforcement operations,” according to Capital News Illinois.
State lawmakers in Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia have introduced similar bills.
Those supporting the bill say it is necessary for protecting constitutional rights from government abuse while providing a level of accountability for federal agents who violate people’s rights. State Sen. Julie Gonzales said, “The Constitution protects us all, and that, my friends, is the genesis of this bill.”
🚨 BAD BILL ALERT! 🚨
— FreeStateColorado (@FreeStateColor1) January 21, 2026
SB26-005 is designed to help agitators interfere with immigration enforcement in Colorado!
Law Enforcement and ANYONE who gets in the way of pro-illegal immigration activists could be sued personally...
The whole idea of this bill is to double-down on… pic.twitter.com/OxCDSWRkCy
State Rep. Yara Zokaie told The Colorado Sun that she heard “pain and fear” from her constituents and accused ICE of operating “in secrecy and outright deception.”
Megan Forbes, senior legislative counsel for the Institute for Justice, testified before Congress and said the bill “responds to a serious problem” because “no meaningful legal remedy exists in state or federal courts when a person’s constitutional rights are violated by federal officials.”
She further pointed out that the measure would not “impede lawful immigration policy.”
However, critics claim the bill would prioritize protecting illegal immigrants over American citizens. Sophia Yamas testified that civil rights only belong to lawful residents and said the bill is “another tool by the state to protect illegals over Americans.”
Juan Jose, a lawful immigrant, claimed the proposed legislation “only solves problems that exist in campaign speeches, not in the real world of public safety.” He further argued that removing immunity from federal officers will not protect the immigrant community, but would “empower” criminals.
State Sen. Lynda Zamora-Wilson questioned how the state legislature could override federal immunity without violating federal supremacy.
Zamora-Wilson’s point about federal immunity could be relevant if this law is passed. The success of lawsuits against ICE agents is not certain given the sweeping legal protections federal officers enjoy.
Under federal law, people can sue state and local police for constitutional violations. But no equivalent law exists for federal agents.
The Supreme Court created a very limited remedy with its 1971 ruling in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, which allows people to sue federal officers for constitutional violations. However, the court’s 2022 ruling in Egbert v. Boule, which exempts Border Patrol agents from the liability that Bivens created.
But even if a plaintiff could get past the barrier established by Bivens, federal officers still have qualified immunity, which is a doctrine that protects officers from lawsuits unless they violate “clearly established” constitutional rights.
Qualified immunity can be quite difficult to overcome — even in cases where federal officers clearly violated someone’s rights.
Given these obstacles, it may not matter whether these states pass these laws. As long as federal protections exist, federal immigration enforcement agents are in the clear, whether they abused their authority or not.
