Senate adopts bill allowing state civil suits over alleged constitutional violations during immigration enforcement

DENVER — The Colorado Senate on Feb. 23 adopted Senate Bill 5, a measure that allows a person who alleges their federal constitutional rights were violated during a civil immigration enforcement action to sue in state court.

Senator Weisman, sponsor of the bill, told the chamber the measure provides “a forum to even get into the question” for people who say they were injured during immigration enforcement and described committee amendments that align the remedy with existing federal doctrines. “We are bringing SB 5,” Weisman said, asking colleagues for support of the judiciary and appropriations committee reports.

Supporters said the bill restores access to civil remedies that federal doctrine has sometimes left unclear. “We are doing this bill,” Weisman said, arguing it enables due process and a chance for injured people to seek redress.

Opponents warned the bill’s breadth could invite large numbers of lawsuits and financial costs for local governments. Senator Carson, a supporter of an amendment that would have required plaintiffs to show a defendant acted knowingly and intentionally, said the measure should include guardrails against “endless litigation” and “frivolous claims” that could be costly for taxpayers. “This type of litigation is a dream for trial lawyers,” Carson said.

Senator Kirkmeyer and others raised concerns about the effect on everyday first responders and police recruitment if liability and governmental immunity are reduced. “What that means to your everyday worker… is you will not be covered under the immunity,” Kirkmeyer said, noting prior legislation and local hiring impacts.

Lawmakers offered and debated a series of amendments meant to narrow the bill’s scope or add clarifications. Amendment L008 (a committee amendment adding proximate-cause language and technical fixes) was adopted. Proposed changes to require a culpable mental state (L004), to bar suits when a plaintiff provoked the conduct (L005), to limit the bill to sworn federal officers (L006), and to carve out claims arising during a governor-declared statewide disaster (L007) were all defeated after floor debate.

Sponsors emphasized that federal immunities and doctrines (including Bivens and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 jurisprudence) remain relevant and that federal defendants may assert immunities or remove cases. Senator Weisman said the bill does not disavow federal immunities and that defendants will still be able to assert removal and established defenses.

The Senate debated the bill’s fiscal implications. Senator Kirkmeyer and others referenced the fiscal note estimating increased risk-management expenditures of about $3.3 million annually beginning in fiscal year 2026–27, with a typical 60% share from general fund sources (approximately $2 million) depending on which agency bears costs. Amendments to require additional fiscal transparency were proposed and some were defeated.

After extended debate, the Senate adopted SB5 as amended by voice vote; sponsors said the measure provides a state-level remedy for people who say they were deprived of federally protected rights during immigration enforcement actions. The bill was advanced toward third reading and final passage.