Colorado Bar Faces Uproar Over E-Filing Immigration Pledge

A new requirement for Colorado attorneys is igniting a professional firestorm, as lawyers are now being forced to certify that they will not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement to maintain access to the state’s mandatory e-filing system. The policy, which emerged this week, has drawn sharp criticism from legal practitioners who argue the directive forces them to choose between their ethical obligations to clients and their personal convictions.

To log into the system, attorneys are now required to submit a certification under penalty of perjury. It states, “I certify under penalty of perjury that I will not use or disclose personal identifying information… for the purpose of investigating for, participating in, cooperating with, or assisting in federal immigration enforcement, including enforcement of civil immigration laws and 8 U.S.C. sec. 1325 or 1326.”

For many, the mandate represents an unprecedented intrusion into legal practice. Attorney Ian Speir, who brought the issue to light on social media, stated that he does not practice immigration or criminal law, yet his civil practice is now effectively stalled.

“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.”

— Ian Speir, Attorney

The requirement stems from the broader legal framework established by Colorado’s Senate Bill 25-276, enacted in May 2025. The legislation significantly expanded prohibitions on local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. While state officials argue these measures protect civil rights and maintain the autonomy of local resources—a stance bolstered by 2025 federal court rulings that favored states refusing to assist in federal immigration enforcement—critics contend that the new e-filing mandate is a, “draconian overreach” that conflates state administrative functions with political activism.

Legal observers are now questioning if the mandate constitutes a violation of federal law, specifically citing 8 U.S. Code § 1373. This federal statute prohibits government entities from restricting the exchange of information regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status with federal authorities. The state’s policy includes stiff civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation for those who fail to comply with the prohibition on information sharing.

The controversy highlights the intensifying friction between Colorado’s restrictive sanctuary policies and federal immigration statutes. While proponents of the law, such as Denver officials, argue the state possesses a constitutional right to decline the use of local resources for federal programs, opponents see the requirement as a forced participation in a, “revolt against federal authority.”

As the legal community grapples with the fallout, many attorneys fear that declining the pledge will result in an immediate inability to file court documents, thereby jeopardizing ongoing litigation for their clients. It remains to be seen whether the state will face litigation over the requirement, as pressure mounts on legal organizations to challenge what many are calling a compelled speech violation.