The Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against Colorado and Denver over sanctuary policies that allegedly obstruct federal immigration enforcement, while state Democrats continue to strengthen protections for immigrants despite Republican opposition.
At a Glance
- DOJ is suing Colorado, Denver, and local officials over sanctuary policies that allegedly hinder federal deportation efforts
- The lawsuit references an Aurora apartment complex allegedly taken over by a Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua
- Colorado Republicans recently failed to pass legislation that would have allowed local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE
- Democrats argue sanctuary policies build community trust, while critics claim they endanger public safety
- The conflict highlights tensions between federal immigration authority and state/local governance
Federal Government Takes Legal Action Against Colorado
The Department of Justice has launched a legal challenge against Colorado’s sanctuary policies, naming Governor Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, and Denver Sheriff Elias Diggins as defendants. Filed in federal court in Denver, the lawsuit asserts that state and local laws preventing cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes federal authority over immigration matters.
At the center of the dispute is a controversial apartment complex in Aurora allegedly taken over by members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang. While local officials dispute the extent of the gang’s control, they acknowledge ongoing issues at the property. The DOJ lawsuit argues that sanctuary policies are preventing proper enforcement against criminal elements, potentially endangering communities.
Perfect example of why Governor @JaredPolis must change state law that prohibits local law enforcement from cooperating with immigration officers.
Cracking down on criminal illegal immigrants is an all-hands on deck situation and it’s time for Colorado Democrats to get on board. https://t.co/vpTnORSJjS
— Gabe Evans (@GabeforColorado) February 5, 2025
Colorado Officials Defend State Policies
Colorado’s leadership has responded firmly to the federal lawsuit. While a spokesperson for Governor Polis’s office stated they “will not comment on the merits of the lawsuit,” they explicitly rejected the characterization of Colorado as a “sanctuary state.” The Governor’s office indicated they would comply with court rulings while defending state laws that have been democratically enacted to serve Colorado communities.
“The United States has well-established, preeminent, and preemptive authority to regulate immigration matters,” stated the Department of Justice.
The Colorado Attorney General’s Office has taken a more assertive stance, with a spokesperson declaring they are “committed to defending Colorado law and has done so successfully in the past in this area. We stand ready to do so again.” Denver’s Mayor’s office similarly criticized the lawsuit, asserting compliance with all laws while emphasizing readiness to defend the city’s values regarding immigrant communities.
Republican Efforts to Revive ICE Cooperation Fail
As the federal lawsuit proceeds, Colorado Republicans recently attempted to roll back the state’s sanctuary protections through Senate Bill 047. The legislation sought to revive a 2006 law that would allow local law enforcement to report arrests of suspected illegal immigrants to ICE and hold individuals for up to 48 hours for federal immigration action. Despite support from several county sheriffs, the bill was defeated in a 2-3 vote following a five-hour debate.
El Paso County Sheriff Joe Roybal accused criminals of taking advantage of Colorado’s status as a “sanctuary” state to “escape prosecution”.
The bill’s inspiration came from Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell, whose department is the only one in Colorado currently complying with ICE under the federal 287(g) program. However, even this cooperation has faced legal challenges, with the ACLU successfully suing the county for detaining individuals longer than state law permits. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the ACLU in this case, underscoring the legal complications surrounding local enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Community Safety vs. Immigrant Protection Debate
The sanctuary policy debate highlights fundamental differences in approach to public safety and immigration. Proponents of cooperation with ICE, including Douglas County Undersheriff David Walcher, argue that sanctuary policies hamper law enforcement’s ability to remove dangerous criminals from communities. Law enforcement officials supporting the Republican bill emphasized they don’t enforce immigration law directly but want to assist federal partners in their mission.
“Why is the state of Colorado getting in their way? We want to help our federal partners and do what we do — keep us safe in our respective jurisdictions. We don’t enforce immigration law, but we can certainly assist them to accomplish their mission,” said Douglas County Undersheriff David Walcher.
Opponents, including immigrant advocacy groups like the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, counter that sanctuary policies actually enhance public safety by building trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities. They argue that when immigrants fear deportation after reporting crimes, they become less likely to cooperate with police, potentially allowing criminals to operate with impunity. Critics of the Republican bill also raised concerns about racial profiling and the financial and social costs of local immigration enforcement.
