Read the full stored bill text
Second Regular Session
Seventy-fifth General Assembly
STATE OF COLORADO
REENGROSSED
This Version Includes All Amendments
Adopted in the House of Introduction
LLS NO. 26-0710.01 Conrad Imel x2313 SENATE BILL 26-005
Senate Committees House Committees
Judiciary
Appropriations
A BILL FOR AN ACT
CONCERNING STATE COURT REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL101
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS O CCURRING DURING IMMIGRATION102
ENFORCEMENT, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, MAKING AN103
APPROPRIATION.104
Bill Summary
(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced and does
not reflect any amendments that may be subsequently adopted. If this bill
passes third reading in the house of introduction, a bill summary that
applies to the reengrossed version of this bill w ill be av ailable at
http://leg.colorado.gov.)
The bill creates a statutory cause of action for a person who is
injured during a civil immigration enforcement action by another person
who, whether or not under color of law, violates the United States
SENATE
3rd Reading Unamended
February 24, 2026
SENATE
Amended 2nd Reading
February 23, 2026
SENATE SPONSORSHIP
Weissman and Gonzales J., Coleman, Hinrichsen, Jodeh, Kipp, Marchman, Rodriguez,
Wallace, Amabile, Ball, Bridges, Cutter, Da nielson, Exum, Kolker , Lindstedt, Snyder,
Sullivan
HOUSE SPONSORSHIP
Mabrey and Zokaie,
Shading denotes HOUSE amendment. Double underlining denotes SENATE amendment.
Capital letters or bold & italic numbers indicate new material to be added to existing law.
Dashes through the words or numbers indicate deletions from existing law.
constitution while participating in civil immigration enforcement. A
person who violates the United States constitution while participating in
civil immigration enforcement is liable to the injured party for legal or
equitable relief or any other appropriate relief. The action must be
commenced within 2 years after the cause of action accrues.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:1
SECTION 1. Legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly2
finds and declares that:3
(a) Since the earliest days of the nation, the United States supreme4
court has held, in cases such as Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804), and5
Murray v. The Charming Betsey, 6 U.S. 64 (1804), that federal officials6
may be liable in damages for violations of federal laws;7
(b) In later 19th century cases as well, the United States supreme8
court held that federal officials could be liable for damages even for9
reasons relating to but beyond the lawful scope of federal duties, Mitchell10
v. Harmony , 54 U.S. 115 (1851), and in particular that state courts11
possessed jurisdiction to consider such damages claims, Teal v. Felton,12
53 U.S. 284 (1852);13
(c) The United States supreme court has long held that federal14
employees are not inherently beyond the reach of state laws simply15
because they are federal employees. For example, in Johnson v.16
Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920), the court noted, "[A]n employee of the17
United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while18
acting in the course of his employment", and in Colorado v. Symes, 28619
U.S. 510 (1932), the court stated, "Federal officers and employees are not,20
merely because they are such, granted immunity from prosecution in state21
courts for crimes against state law".22
(d) Decades later, the United States supreme court continued to23
005-2-
recognize the role of state law in holding federal officials accountable for1
legal violations, noting in Wheeldin v. Wheeler , 373 U.S. 647 (1963),2
"[w]hen it comes to suits for damages for abuse of power, federal3
officials are usually governed by local law";4
(e) When the United States supreme court recognized a federal5
law cause of action for violation of certain constitutional rights in Bivens6
v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), that cause7
of action was in addition to, rather than instead of, traditional state law8
remedies. Even one of the dissenting justices in Bivens noted the ongoing9
role of state courts, writing, "The task of evaluating the pros and cons of10
creating judicial remedies for particular wrongs is a matter for Congress11
and the legislatures of the States".12
(f) More recently, congress has made federal statutory law the13
exclusive remedy for certain claims sounding in tort, but this exclusivity14
specifically "does not extend or apply to a civil action against an15
employee of the Government [. . .] which is brought for a violation of the16
Constitution of the United States", 28 U.S.C. sec. 2679. The prime17
sponsor of legislation amending the federal "Tort Claims Act" to provide18
for limited exclusivity took pains to clarify, "We make special provisions19
here to make clear that the more controversial issue of constitutional torts20
is not covered by this bill. If you are accused of having violated21
someone's constitutional rights, this bill does not affect it", 134 Cong.22
Rec. 15963 (1988).23
(g) In 2022, in declining to extend the scope of the Bivens action24
in Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), the United States supreme court25
observed that legislatures, not courts, are the better branches of26
government to fashion damages remedies;27
005-3-
(h) In its most recently completed term, the United States supreme1
court declined, in Martin v. United States , 145 S. Ct. 1689 (2025), to2
extend the doctrine of supremacy clause immunity beyond its traditional3
criminal law context;4
(i) Violating the federal constitutional rights of residents of the5
United States has never been and can never be "necessary and proper" to6
the execution of the laws and powers of the United States within the7
meaning of article I, section 8, clause 18 of the United States constitution;8
and9
(j) In enacting this act, the Colorado general assembly affirms its10
longstanding and rightful role as a sovereign state in providing forum in11
its courts for adjudication of claims of federal constitutional violations.12
SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 13-20-1302 as13
follows:14
13-20-1302. Civil action for violation of constitutional rights15
during immigration enforcement - relief - attorney fees - time limit to16
commence action - definition.17
(1) A PERSON WHO HAS THEIR RIGHTS THAT ARE GUARANTEED BY18
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION VIOLATED BY ANOTHER PERSON WHO,19
ACTING UNDER COLOR OF ANY FEDERAL , STATE , OR LOCAL LAW , IS20
PARTICIPATING IN CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, MAY BRING A CIVIL21
ACTION AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON WHOSE CONDUCT WAS THE PROXIMATE22
CAUSE OF THE VIOLATION . A PERSON FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED THE23
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WHILE PARTICIPATING IN CIVIL24
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IS LIABLE TO THE PERSON WHOSE RIGHTS ARE25
VIOLATED FOR LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RELIEF OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE26
RELIEF.27
005-4-
(2) (a) I N AN ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION , A1
COURT SHALL AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS TO A2
PREVAILING PLAINTIFF. IN ACTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF , A COURT3
SHALL DEEM A PLAINTIFF TO HAVE PREVAILED IF THE PLAINTIFF'S SUIT WAS4
A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR OR SIGNIFICANT CATALYST IN OBTAINING THE5
RESULTS SOUGHT BY THE LITIGATION.6
(b) WHEN A JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF A DEFENDANT ,7
THE COURT MAY AWARD REASONABLE COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES TO THE8
DEFENDANT FOR DEFENDING ANY CLAIMS THE COURT FINDS FRIVOLOUS.9
(3) TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE UNITED10
STATES CONSTITUTION AND 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1983, A GRANT OF IMMUNITY11
TO A DEFENDANT , INCLUDING , BUT NOT LIMITED TO , SOVEREIGN12
IMMUNITY; OFFICIAL IMMUNITY ; INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ;13
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ; SUPREMACY CLAUSE IMMUNITY ; STATUTORY14
IMMUNITY, INCLUDING THE "COLORADO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY15
ACT", ARTICLE 10 OF TITLE 24; OR COMMON LAW IMMUNITY , DOES NOT16
APPLY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.17
(4) AS USED IN THIS SECTION , UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE18
REQUIRES, "CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT " MEANS AN ACTION TO19
INVESTIGATE, QUESTION, DETAIN, TRANSFER, OR ARREST A PERSON FOR20
THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING FEDERAL CIVIL IMMIGRATION LAW . "CIVIL21
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT" DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ACTION COMMITTED22
BY A PEACE OFFICER WHO IS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PEACE23
OFFICER'S DUTIES CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.24
(5) PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-80-102, A CIVIL ACTION DESCRIBED25
IN THIS SECTION MUST BE COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE26
CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES.27
005-5-
SECTION 3. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 13-80-102, amend1
(1)(k); and add (1)(l) as follows:2
13-80-102. General limitation of actions - two years.3
(1) The following civil actions, regardless of the theory upon4
which suit is brought, or against whom suit is brought, must be5
commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues, and not6
thereafter:7
(k) All actions brought under PURSUANT TO section 13-21-109 (2);8
AND9
(l) AN ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS10
DURING CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT BROUGHT PURSUANT TO11
SECTION 13-20-1302.12
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this act or the13
application of this act to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the14
invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that15
can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to16
this end the provisions of this act are declared to be severable.17
SECTION 5. Appropriation. (1) For the 2026-27 state fiscal18
year, $125,604 is appropriated to the department of law. This19
appropriation is from the legal services cash fund created in section20
24-31-108 (4), C.R.S., from revenue received from the department of21
personnel that is continuously appropriated to the department of personnel22
from the risk management fund created in section 24-30-1510 (1)(a),23
C.R.S. The appropriation to the department of law is based on an24
assumption that the department of law will require an additional 0.5 FTE.25
To implement this act, the department of law may use this appropriation26
to provide legal services for the department of personnel.27
005-6-
SECTION 6. Safety clause. The general assembly finds,1
determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate2
preservation of the public peace, health, or safety or for appropriations for3
the support and maintenance of the departments of the state and state4
institutions.5
005-7-