Colorado Forces Lawyers To Swear They Won't Help Feds Nab Illegals
Progressive policy ambitions meet practical realities as Americans weigh costs and consequences.
Colorado’s defenders frame this new e-filing certification as a harmless privacy safeguard, as if the only issue is keeping sensitive data out of the wrong hands. That skips the real story: the state is using its courts to impose an ideological loyalty test on private lawyers who simply need access to file motions and represent clients. The problem is not that attorneys should casually hand over personal data.
New Republican Times Editorial Board
Colorado Forces Lawyers To Swear They Won't Help Feds Nab Illegals Lawyers in the Mile High State are now being strong-armed by Democrats into signing a radical anti-immigration-enforcement pledge just to do their jobs.
Starting March 30, 2026, every private attorney logging into Colorado’s official Courts E-Filing system (CCE) must certify - under penalty of perjury - that they will never use or share non-public personal information from court records to assist federal immigration authorities.
Refuse? You’re shut out of the system entirely. No filing lawsuits, no checking case files, no representing clients in state court. Period. The certification reads in part: “ I certify under penalty of perjury that I will not use personal identifying information obtained from the database ... for th...
Original source:
Read at ZerohedgeHow We See It
New Republican Times Editorial Board
Colorado’s defenders frame this new e-filing certification as a harmless privacy safeguard, as if the only issue is keeping sensitive data out of the wrong hands. That skips the real story: the state is using its courts to impose an ideological loyalty test on private lawyers who simply need access to file motions and represent clients.
The problem is not that attorneys should casually hand over personal data. It is that Colorado is compelling sworn promises that single out federal immigration enforcement, while granting government lawyers a carve-out. That is not neutral administration. It is viewpoint-based conditioning of basic access to the justice system.
Courts run on public trust, and trust erodes when access depends on compelled speech. A state can set confidentiality rules. It should not weaponize its judiciary to frustrate federal law enforcement or to pick winners and losers in the legal profession.
At stake is equal access to the courts and the rule of law, not Colorado’s preferred immigration posture.
Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.