A Bill for an Act
Page 1, Line 101Concerning state court remedies for violations of federal
Page 1, Line 102constitutional rights occurring during immigration
Page 1, Line 103enforcement.
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 will be available 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 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.
Page 2, Line 1Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
Page 2, Line 2SECTION 1. Legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly
Page 2, Line 3finds and declares that:
Page 2, Line 4(a) Since the earliest days of the nation, the United States supreme
Page 2, Line 5court has held, in cases such as Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804), and
Page 2, Line 6Murray v. The Charming Betsey, 6 U.S. 64 (1804), that federal officials
Page 2, Line 7may be liable in damages for violations of federal laws;
Page 2, Line 8(b) The United States supreme court has long held that federal
Page 2, Line 9employees are not inherently beyond the reach of state laws simply
Page 2, Line 10because they are federal employees. For example, in Johnson v.
Page 2, Line 11Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920), the court noted, "[A]n employee of the
Page 2, Line 12United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while
Page 2, Line 13acting in the course of his employment", and in Colorado v. Symes, 286
Page 2, Line 14U.S. 510 (1932), the court stated, "Federal officers and employees are not,
Page 2, Line 15merely because they are such, granted immunity from prosecution in state
Page 2, Line 16courts for crimes against state law".
Page 2, Line 17(c) Decades later, the United States supreme court continued to
Page 2, Line 18recognize the role of state law in holding federal officials accountable for
Page 2, Line 19legal violations, noting in Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647 (1963),
Page 2, Line 20"[w]hen it comes to suits for damages for abuse of power, federal
Page 2, Line 21officials are usually governed by local law";
Page 2, Line 22(d) When the United States supreme court recognized a federal
Page 2, Line 23law cause of action for violation of certain constitutional rights in Bivens
Page 2, Line 24v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), that cause
Page 3, Line 1of action was in addition to, rather than instead of, traditional state law
Page 3, Line 2remedies. Even one of the dissenting justices in Bivens noted the ongoing
Page 3, Line 3role of state law, writing, "The task of evaluating the pros and cons of
Page 3, Line 4creating judicial remedies for particular wrongs is a matter for Congress
Page 3, Line 5and the legislatures of the States".
Page 3, Line 6(e) More recently, congress has made federal statutory law the
Page 3, Line 7exclusive remedy for certain claims sounding in tort, but this exclusivity
Page 3, Line 8specifically "does not extend or apply to a civil action against an
Page 3, Line 9employee of the Government [. . .] which is brought for a violation of the
Page 3, Line 10Constitution of the United States", 28 U.S.C. sec. 2679. The prime
Page 3, Line 11sponsor of legislation amending the federal "Tort Claims Act" to provide
Page 3, Line 12for limited exclusivity took pains to clarify, "We make special provisions
Page 3, Line 13here to make clear that the more controversial issue of constitutional torts
Page 3, Line 14is not covered by this bill. If you are accused of having violated
Page 3, Line 15someone's constitutional rights, this bill does not affect it", 134 Cong.
Page 3, Line 16Rec. 15963 (1988).
Page 3, Line 17(f) In 2022, in declining to extend the scope of the Bivens action
Page 3, Line 18in Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), the United States supreme court
Page 3, Line 19observed that legislatures, not courts, are the better branches of
Page 3, Line 20government to fashion damages remedies;
Page 3, Line 21(g) In its most recently completed term, the United States supreme
Page 3, Line 22court declined, in Martin v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 1689 (2025), to
Page 3, Line 23extend the doctrine of supremacy clause immunity beyond its traditional
Page 3, Line 24criminal law context;
Page 3, Line 25(h) Violating the federal constitutional rights of residents of the
Page 3, Line 26United States has never been and can never be "necessary and proper" to
Page 3, Line 27the execution of the laws and powers of the United States within the
Page 4, Line 1meaning of article I, section 8, clause 18 of the United States constitution;
Page 4, Line 2and
Page 4, Line 3(i) In enacting this act, the Colorado general assembly affirms its
Page 4, Line 4longstanding and rightful role as a sovereign state in providing forum in
Page 4, Line 5its courts for adjudication of claims of federal constitutional violations.
Page 4, Line 6SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 13-20-1302 as
Page 4, Line 7follows:
Page 4, Line 813-20-1302. Civil action for violation of constitutional rights
Page 4, Line 9during immigration enforcement - relief - attorney fees - time limit to
Page 4, Line 10commence action - definition.
Page 4, Line 11(1) A person who is injured during civil immigration
Page 4, Line 12enforcement by another person who, whether or not under
Page 4, Line 13color of law, violates the United States constitution while
Page 4, Line 14participating in civil immigration enforcement may bring a civil
Page 4, Line 15action against the other person. A person found to have
Page 4, Line 16violated the United States constitution while participating in
Page 4, Line 17civil immigration enforcement is liable to the injured person for
Page 4, Line 18legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief.
Page 4, Line 19(2) (a) In an action brought pursuant to this section, a
Page 4, Line 20court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a
Page 4, Line 21prevailing plaintiff. In actions for injunctive relief, a court
Page 4, Line 22shall deem a plaintiff to have prevailed if the plaintiff's suit was
Page 4, Line 23a substantial factor or significant catalyst in obtaining the
Page 4, Line 24results sought by the litigation.
Page 4, Line 25(b) When a judgment is entered in favor of a defendant,
Page 4, Line 26the court may award reasonable costs and attorney fees to the
Page 4, Line 27defendant for defending any claims the court finds frivolous.
Page 5, Line 1(3) To the maximum extent permissible under the United
Page 5, Line 2States constitution, a grant of immunity to a defendant,
Page 5, Line 3including, but not limited to, sovereign immunity; official
Page 5, Line 4immunity; intergovernmental immunity; qualified immunity;
Page 5, Line 5supremacy clause immunity; statutory immunity, including the
Page 5, Line 6"Colorado Governmental Immunity Act", article 10 of title 24;
Page 5, Line 7or common law immunity, does not apply in an action brought
Page 5, Line 8pursuant to this section.
Page 5, Line 9(4) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise
Page 5, Line 10requires, "civil immigration enforcement" means an action to
Page 5, Line 11investigate, question, detain, transfer, or arrest a person for
Page 5, Line 12the purpose of enforcing federal civil immigration law. "Civil
Page 5, Line 13immigration enforcement" does not include an action committed
Page 5, Line 14by a peace officer who is acting within the scope of the peace
Page 5, Line 15officer's duties consistent with state law.
Page 5, Line 16(5) Pursuant to section 13-80-102, a civil action described
Page 5, Line 17in this section must be commenced within two years after the
Page 5, Line 18cause of action accrues.
Page 5, Line 19SECTION 3. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 13-80-102, amend
Page 5, Line 20(1)(k); and add (1)(l) as follows:
Page 5, Line 2113-80-102. General limitation of actions - two years.
Page 5, Line 22(1) The following civil actions, regardless of the theory upon
Page 5, Line 23which suit is brought, or against whom suit is brought, must be
Page 5, Line 24commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues, and not
Page 5, Line 25thereafter:
Page 5, Line 26(k) All actions brought
underPage 5, Line 27and
Page 6, Line 1(l) An action alleging a violation of constitutional rights
Page 6, Line 2during civil immigration enforcement brought pursuant to
Page 6, Line 3section 13-20-1302.
Page 6, Line 4SECTION 4. Safety clause. The general assembly finds,
Page 6, Line 5determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
Page 6, Line 6preservation of the public peace, health, or safety or for appropriations for
Page 6, Line 7the support and maintenance of the departments of the state and state
Page 6, Line 8institutions.