AURORA | Democratic state lawmakers introduced a bill on the first day of the 2026 Legislature that would create a way for people injured by ICE or other federal agents during legal protests or immigration enforcement operations to sue those responsible, overriding claims of immunity of federal officials.
“It’s a simple idea, where there are rights in law, and there are no rights more fundamental than our Constitutional rights, there have to be remedies,” said Aurora Democratic state Sen. Mike Weissman, the author and prime sponsor of bill 26-5.
The proposal comes as Democrats and some Republicans in Colorado and across the country rebuke the Trump administration’s stepped-up mass-deportation efforts using brigades of masked, armed ICE agents.
“State courts have been where federal officials have been held responsible for violating the law, including constitutional law, for over 200 years,” Weissman said. “So it may be a new bill just introduced in Colorado in these early days of 2026, but it’s actually a very old idea. I mean, the government is under the law, too.”
The days since Renee Good was shot and killed Jan. 7 by an ICE officer in Minneapolis, while behind the wheel of her SUV, have seen dozens of protests or vigils across the U.S. to honor the 37-year-old mother of three and to passionately condemn the Trump administration’s tactics.
“I’ve been working on this bill probably since late fall, and I was going to introduce it as my first bill regardless, but the events that unfolded before the eyes of the country in Minneapolis last week,” Weissman said. “An American citizen who we know is a former Colorado resident, was killed in broad daylight by federal agents with no justification. They fired in her car, basically point-blank. That is perhaps the most appalling example of out-of-control federal agents.”
But it’s not the only one, and it won’t be the last, he said.
Dozens of protesters there, and during other clashes at other cities during the last few months, have produced provocative photos, video and news stories of protesters injured by ICE and federal agents. Two people were shot and hospitalized by a border patrol agent in Portland, Oregon Jan. 8.
Weissman’s bill would let someone who is hurt during a civil immigration enforcement action sue anyone who stopped them from legally protesting, if that protest was constitutionally protected and they were injured as a result.
The measure would ensure a right to sue in a state court, even if the perpetrator were a federal official or officer, who might otherwise enjoy immunity from lawsuits.
“The idea that the federal government should operate within its constitutional powers and should be accountable to the people is a classic conservative idea in this country,” Weissman said. “And for that reason, organizations that stay true to those ideas are supportive of things like this.”
The central feature of the bill is its explicit rejection of immunity defenses. The measure states that defendants could not rely on sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, supremacy clause immunity or other statutory or common-law immunities, including those typically available to government officials.
“It is true that there are certain immunities in some cases that federal government officials enjoy, but it is not absolute,” Weissman said. “It has never been absolute, and it never should be absolute.”
Weissman said he is confident the bill will survive federal court review. He said he has been researching and discussing the best language with people on both sides of the aisle, including people with strong constitutional backgrounds.
“In drafting it, in choosing key details of the bill and the language I have made, every effort I know how to make for it to be within the law, within the permissible power of a state, as I understand it,” Weissman said.
Weissman cites in his bill Supreme Court decisions proponents say stand behind the proposal.
Bivens v. the six unknown agents, a 1971 case, provides individuals with a statutory right to sue and recover damages from federal officials for violations of their constitutional rights, according to the Congress Library.
“The modern court is very conservative, and they’ve started to sort of throw some shade, to use a non-legal term, on Bivens,” Weissman said. “And frankly, the Supreme Court could wipe that out entirely. This term, they do have that ability.”
Bivens is a cause of action people can bring, not because Congress passed a law, but because the Supreme Court created it, Weissman said. The Supreme Court basically said that people should be able to sue federal officials for certain constitutional violations, even though there isn’t a statute spelling that out, he said.
So, the Supreme Court gave that cause of action to the people, and they can take it away, he Weissman said.
“Some legal advocates are afraid that they will, so Bivens has never been as broad as rights violations,” he said. “That’s one problem, and it is prone to being further modified, curtailed and even repealed by the US Supreme Court.”
This bill aims to cure that problem before it starts.
“This bill is just to say that Colorado should do what states have long done, which is provide a state law answer in a state court forum for consideration of these important questions,” Weissman said.
He said he also wanted to include, in the bill, Supreme Court Cases over the years, in plain language, unpacking the history of this issue across the country.
The measure, however, excludes actions by state or local police officers acting within the scope of their duties under state law. Weissman said he did not include local police because Colorado State Police Accountability laws already detail those responsibilities and rights.
Other states are also considering or enacting legislation directed at restricting federal immigration missions and protecting constitutional rights of citizens.
Illinois passed House Bill 1312, which restricts immigration enforcement in “sensitive areas,” such as schools and hospitals, and establishes legal recourse for violations of constitutional rights by civil immigration enforcement agents. California recently introduced the No Kings Act, Massachusetts introduced the Qualified Immunity Abolition Act of 2026, along with New Jersey and New York; all recently introduced laws that aim to do the same thing as Weissman’s bill, proponents say.
“I have looked at the laws in other states as part of framing this bill,” Weissman said. “I have borrowed ideas. I have decided, no, I like what this state did, I don’t like what that state did, or I like things, and I don’t like things that the same state did. We have to do what makes sense in Colorado and what is consistent with the rest of our laws.”
The bill was introduced in a Democratic-controlled legislature Wednesday, while Weissman said the country will see many similar bills popping up across left- and right-leaning states. The measure was assigned to the state Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing.
He said that Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Iowa, Virginia, and New Hampshire are a handful of states he knows are looking at this question soon.
“A lot of other state legislatures are considering bills like this, I think, for pretty obvious reasons,” Weissman said. “And some of these states are what you call blue, and some are purple, and one or two are even a little bit red. And the details of the bills may vary, but the common denominator is that states need to be part of providing a remedy for their people where federal constitutional rights are violated.”
American patriots are 100% on the side of ICE and would like to see maximum force used against all protestors who attempt to block or interfere with the critical job our beloved American ICE agent patriot heroes are doing.
If Trump was serious about solving the immigration policy, he would act like a reasonable president and engage legislators and actually do some leading to get Democratic and GOP legislators to devise a method for immigrants to come into our country, be adequately vetted, and be tracked as they negotiate the process to find work and eventually become citizens. And, the process must be clear, have consequences for bad actors, and be much quicker. Instead, he wants to create chaos and then divide us by blaming the victims of his poor planning. If he were a serious politician, he wouldn’t find a difference between the Jan. 6 riot and people who get out of hand when they protest. But, he’s never been serious – he creates problems, finds some punitive measure to prove his power, employs it, and then sits back and criticizes opponents to his actions and the resulting damage. This is his pattern and by now we should easily see it. He shouldn’t have been allowed to be dog catcher, must less president!