AURORA | State legislators from Aurora, Denver and various states outlined a growing collection of state-level bills they say will protect civil rights, reinforce due process and restrict cooperation with federal agents in response to the Trump Administration’s immigration and deportation policies.
“When the federal government fails to uphold the rule of law, states are stepping up to protect communities and defend constitutional principles,” said Gabby Goldstein, State Futures president and founder.
Lawmakers representing California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia named some of the legislation they introduced or are introducing to push back against the federal government’s tough immigration policing during a Zoom press briefing Thursday. The initiatives include banning agreements or federal pacts between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and state and local law enforcement, prohibiting law enforcement from wearing masks, protections for “sensitive locations” such as schools and libraries and creating private rights of action for civil rights violations.
Colorado Democratic Aurora Sen. Mike Weissman said Aurora was “ground zero” for heightened political attention on immigration enforcement. He described Colorado’s recent work as part of a multi-state effort to develop remedies to protect constitutional rights.
“You see many states on this Zoom today, because right now, states are not just a laboratory of Democracy, as Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, they are also laboratories where remedies are being developed to protect our country from the disease of authoritarianism that is spreading out from Washington DC,” Weissman said. “As different states work together to defend democracy and civil rights, and basic human decency. It’s never been more important in our lifetimes that like-minded state legislators, like those here, work together to share ideas and strategies.”
Weissman said that Colorado’s Senate Bill 25-276 says the constitution protects everyone regardless of immigration status. The measure was signed into law in 2025, and it bars jail officials from delaying a person’s release to facilitate an immigration enforcement operation and strengthens limits on cooperation with immigration enforcement without proper judicial authorization.
This includes protecting state and local government data sources from “improper prying federal efforts” and requiring data security policies at a number of essential community locations, such as schools, health care facilities, and child care centers, he said.
It also further clarified in state law that so-called ICE detainers are not lawful arrest warrants within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, and it updated and enhanced privacy protections in the Colorado Privacy Act for commercial geolocation data.
Finally, he said, it allows both injunctive relief and the possibility of civil monetary penalties for violation of the above protections “because rights need to be backstopped by remedies to be meaningful to people.”
“I have personally gained ideas from discussions like this that I hope to turn into policy with my colleagues here in Colorado next session,” Weissman said. “I also hope that our efforts that we have shared with colleagues in other states can turn into policy in other parts of our country as well.”
Rep. Lorena Garcia, D-Denver, also brought up Colorado’s 2023 law restricting the use of intergovernmental service agreements to detain people for ICE and limiting certain local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. She said Colorado lawmakers plan to introduce additional bills in the coming session focused on accountability, liability for improper information sharing, and additional trust-building measures.
“We all see that ICE is actually, in fact, not a law enforcement agency,” Garcia said. “It is a lawless agency.”
New York state Sen. Andrew Gounardes said he proposed a bill to limit when local governments and law enforcement can collaborate with ICE, generally requiring a judicial warrant. New York Sen. Zellnor Myrie proposed a bill that would allow people to sue for damages when constitutional rights are violated.
“These are our neighbors,” Gounardes said. “These are our coworkers. These are our children’s classmates. They pay taxes, they have businesses, they have jobs, they’re contributing members of our society.”
New York Sen. Patricia Fahy described legislation she’s sponsoring, dubbed the MELT Act, framed as an effort to require federal immigration agents operating in New York to be clearly identifiable, arguing public safety depends on public trust.
“The idea of federal agents acting like secret police or paramilitary units abducting people off our streets in broad daylight has been destroying that trust,” Fahey said.
New York Assemblymember Michael Asher said he created sensitive location protections to bar civil immigration arrests near schools, houses of worship, health care facilities, homeless shelters, nonprofits and government agencies. New York Sen. Shelly Mayer also enacted school-focused policies requiring judicial warrants and documented procedures before immigration agents could enter school spaces.
“I know that in my district, in urban districts and in rural districts, parents are afraid to send their children to school because of the activities of ICE,” Mayer said.
California Assemblymember Alex Lee said California has a recently enacted law, described as a “No Secret Police” measure, that bars law enforcement from wearing facial coverings. She also mentioned additional laws that restrict immigration enforcement’s access to schools without a judicial warrant, as well as budget investments in immigrant legal services and state litigation capacity.
Illinois Sen. Graciela Guzman described a bill proposal that would combine “safe spaces” guidance for hospitals, courthouses, schools, higher education, and child care centers with accountability provisions, such as a state civil cause of action for constitutional rights violations during civil immigration enforcement.
“This is about the Constitution,” Guzman said. “This is about whether we allow fear to become policy. If the federal government wants to push an agenda of intimidation, the state of Illinois and the states on this call will continue to push back with law, with organizing, with rapid response and with solidarity that does not fracture under pressure.”
Yeah, we know Garcia’s a really serious and adult person by the wall of Funko Pops sitting behind her.
And of course, what Weissman means by “protect democracy” is, “ensure my team retains completely political hegemony.”