Colorado attorneys say the state’s court e-filing system is forcing them to promise they won’t help federal immigration authorities, a requirement tied to the 2025 Protect Civil Rights Immigration Status Act. Lawyers report being blocked from routine access unless they accept a certification that limits sharing of nonpublic personal information. The move has prompted sharp criticism from conservative lawyers who see the step as an unlawful, political condition on legal practice. State officials call it a privacy safeguard, but critics say it undermines federal law and attorney duties.
Several attorneys logged into the Colorado e-filing portal and were presented with a message they could not ignore. It demanded a formal pledge: “I certify under penalty of perjury that I will not use or disclose personal identifying information, as defined by [the act] obtained from this database 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, unless required by federal or state law or to comply with a court-issued subpoena, warrant, or order,” the message says, asking attorneys to “accept” or “decline.”
Covenant Law founder Ian Speir reported the prompt when he tried to access filings and pushed back publicly. “Colorado is now requiring lawyers in the state, as a condition of logging into its court e-filing system, to promise not to cooperate with federal authorities in enforcing federal immigration law,” Speir said in response on X. He noted he does not practice immigration or criminal law and added that he “cannot log into the state’s official e-filing system without saluting ‘The Resistance’.”
The certification has immediate practical consequences for attorneys who say it obstructs representation. Speir warned, “I now cannot represent my clients, file lawsuits, access cases, file documents in existing cases,” and said he chose the “accept” option “under protest.” That illustrates how a technical change can translate into real barriers for lawyers and clients seeking routine court access.
https://x.com/ianspeir/status/2039724650150994362?s=46
Other conservative legal figures joined the backlash and labeled the oath intolerable. Attorney and former law professor Matt Barber added on X that the oath the state expects lawyers to take is “indefensible.” The announcement Barber received explained the Colorado Judicial Department deployed an “updated certification process” as of March 30 to comply with the new law.
The department says initial steps were paused last September for “additional review” before rolling out the current process. Officials also insisted that “The majority of CCE information remains public; this requirement only impacts access to nonpublic personal identifying information as defined by statute,” and they said attorneys who decline must complete a “brief certification” to proceed. That framing positions the change as narrowly targeted, but critics say the effect is broader and coercive.
Reaction across the right has been sharp and pointed, with critics using blunt language to highlight the stakes. “Democrats going back to their Confederacy roots,” one critic quipped, invoking civil disobedience statutes to accuse state officials of opposing federal authority. Fox News contributor Guy Benson summed up the next likely step for many when he wrote, “Big lawsuits: Now.”
The 2025 law behind the certification, carried by state lawmakers, aims to limit collection and disclosure of immigration status information across health care, education and government. It also bars civil arrests at courthouses, restricts military forces from other states from entering Colorado without executive permission unless acting on federal orders, and removes prior requirements that applicants for college admission or driver’s licenses sign forms pledging they have applied for lawful presence in the U.S. The clash now centers on whether implementing those protections can lawfully be wrapped into a condition for using the state’s court systems.
Graduate Student, wife, engaged political and legal writer.