Colorado has quietly backed away from a controversial policy that placed attorneys in an unusual position: before accessing the state’s court e-filing system, they were required to certify that they would not use information obtained through the system to assist federal immigration enforcement efforts.
The requirement sparked immediate backlash from attorneys, free speech advocates, and members of Congress, who argued that the state had crossed a constitutional line by forcing private lawyers to adopt the government’s preferred position on immigration.
Now, after months of criticism, the requirement is gone.
Last week, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed House Bill 26-1276, which removed the certification requirement for attorneys seeking access to Colorado’s electronic court filing system. The change effectively ends a dispute that had become a flashpoint in the broader battle over sanctuary-state policies and the limits of state authority.
The controversy began earlier this year when attorneys discovered that accessing Colorado’s e-filing platform required them to certify they would not share certain information with federal immigration authorities. State officials maintained that the language stemmed from the Protect Civil Rights Immigration Status Act of 2025.
For some lawyers, however, the requirement was about far more than immigration policy.
Colorado Springs attorney Ian Speir became one of the most outspoken critics. He argued that the state was attempting to force private attorneys into supporting its political position on immigration, regardless of their own views or legal obligations.
Speir noted that he does not practice immigration law and rarely deals with criminal matters. Yet he still could not access the court system without making what he viewed as a political pledge.
In his view, Colorado was effectively demanding that attorneys “salute the resistance” before allowing them to perform their jobs.
The issue eventually attracted national attention.
In April, the House Judiciary Committee cited reporting on the controversy and formally notified Colorado officials that the certification appeared to improperly commandeer private attorneys into advancing state immigration policies. Committee members also raised concerns that the requirement could violate First Amendment protections by compelling speech and restricting lawful communication with federal authorities.
Rep. Tom McClintock, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, welcomed Colorado’s reversal but warned that he sees the incident as part of a larger trend.
Speaking to Fox News Digital, McClintock argued that some sanctuary jurisdictions increasingly operate under the assumption that they can obstruct federal immigration laws they oppose.
“I think they’ve crossed the line into obstruction,” McClintock said, referring to the certification requirement.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, better known as FIRE, also played a significant role in the controversy. The organization publicly criticized the policy and indicated it was prepared to challenge the state in court if the requirement remained in place.
After Colorado reversed course, FIRE praised the decision.
“Colorado made the right move removing the certification requirement, which was a clear viewpoint-based regulation that violated the First Amendment,” the organization said in a statement.
That viewpoint-discrimination argument became one of the strongest criticisms of the policy. Under longstanding First Amendment principles, governments generally cannot favor one viewpoint while suppressing another. Critics argued that requiring attorneys to refrain from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement amounted to exactly that kind of impermissible government action.
Greg Greubel, a senior attorney with FIRE, noted that governments cannot condition access to courts on promises not to use information for lawful purposes simply because state officials dislike those purposes.
For Speir, the issue was straightforward.
While the government may direct its own employees and attorneys, he argued, private lawyers work for their clients—not the state.
The broader fight, however, is far from over.
