SB 5 — Rights Violation in Immigration Enforcement Remedy

SecondNOTE: Regular Session Seventy-fifth General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO REREVISED This Version Includes All Amendments Adopted in the Second House LLS NO.

26-0710.01This Conradbill Imelhas x2313been SENATEprepared BILLfor 26-005the SENATEsignatures SPONSORSHIPof Weissmanthe andappropriate Gonzaleslegislative J.,officers Coleman, Hinrichsen, Jodeh, Kipp, Marchman, Rodriguez, Wallace, Amabile, Ball, Bridges, Cutter, Danielson, Exum, Kolker, Lindstedt, Snyder, Sullivan HOUSE SPONSORSHIP Mabrey and Zokaie,the Bacon,Governor. Boesenecker, Brown, Duran, English, Froelich, Garcia, Gilchrist, Jackson, Joseph, Lindsay, McCormick, Nguyen, Paschal, Rutinel, Rydin, Sirota, Smith, Story, Titone, Velasco, Willford, Woodrow e n m 6 E n 0 U U , O i y H a a Senate Committees House Committees R M Judiciary Judiciary r Appropriations Appropriations 3 d A BILL FOR AN ACT d e 2 C ONCERNING STATE COURT REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL S a 2 U U 6 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OCCURRING DURING IMMIGRATION H g a d M ENFORCEMENT ,AND ,IN CONNECTION THEREWITH ,MAKING AN e d APPROPRIATION .

2To Billdetermine Summarywhether dthe 6Governor ehas 0signed (Note:the bill or taken other action on it, please consult the legislative status sheet, the legislative history, or the Session Laws.

ThisSENATE summaryBILL applies26-005 toBYSENATOR(S)WeissmanandGonzalesJ.,Coleman,Hinrichsen,Jodeh, thisKipp, billMarchman, asRodriguez, introducedWallace, andAmabile, doesBall, mBridges, 2Cutter, TDanielson, nExum, 4Kolker, notreflectanyamendmentsthatmaybesubsequentlyadopted.IfthisbillLindstedt, NSnyder, gSullivan; y passes third reading in the house of introduction, a bill summary that E i a S e r applies to the reengrossed version of this bill will be available at R e r F http://leg.colorado.gov.) 3 The bill creates a statutory cause of action for a person who is injured during a civil immigration enforcement action byanother person i a 2 who, whether or not under color of law, violates the United States e 2 T d 3 A n 2 E d a Shading denotes HOUSE amendment.

Doublealso underliningREPRESENTATIVE(S) denotesMabrey SENATEand amendment.Zokaie, Bacon, Boesenecker, Brown, Duran, English, Froelich, Garcia, Gilchrist, Jackson, Joseph, Lindsay, McCormick, Nguyen, Paschal, Rutinel, Rydin, Sirota, Smith, Story, Titone, Velasco, Willford, Woodrow.

SCONCERNING dSTATE rCOURT CapitalREMEDIES lettersFOR orVIOLATIONS boldOF &FEDERAL italicCONSTITUTIONAL numbersRIGHTS indicateOCCURRING newDURING materialIMMIGRATION toENFORCEMENT be, addedAND to, existingIN law.nCONNECTION eTHEREWITH Dashes, throughMAKING theAN wordsAPPROPRIATION or. numbers indicate deletions from existing law.

m F A 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.

SECTION1.SECTION 1.

Legislativedeclaration.(1)Legislative Thegeneralassemblydeclaration. finds and declares that:

(a)(1) Sincetheearliestdaysofthenation,theUnitedStatessupremeThe courtgeneral hasassembly held,finds inand casesdeclares suchthat: as Little v.

(a) Since the earliest days of the nation, the United States supreme court has held, in cases such as Little v.

(b)________ InCapital laterletters 19thor centurycasesbold as& well,italic thenumbers Unitedindicate Statesnew supremematerial courtadded heldto thatexisting federallaw; officials could be liable for damages even for reasonsrelatingtobutbeyondthelawfulscopeoffederalduties,Mitchell v.

dashes through words or numbers indicate deletions from existing law and such material is not part of the act.

(b) In later 19th century cases as well, the United States supreme courtheldthatfederalofficialscouldbeliablefordamagesevenforreasons relating to but beyond the lawful scope of federal duties, Mitchell v.

(c) The United States supreme court has long held that federal employeesemployeesarenotinherentlybeyondthereachofstatelawssimplybecause aretheyarefederalemployees.Forexample,inJohnsonv.Maryland,254U.S. not inherently beyond the reach of state laws simply because they are federal employees.

For(1920), example,the court noted, "[A]n employee of the United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while acting in Johnsonthe course of his employment", and in Colorado v.

Maryland,Symes, 254286 U.S.

51510 (1920),(1932), the court noted,stated, "[A]n"Federal employeeofficers ofand theemployees Unitedare Statesnot, doesmerely notbecause securethey aare generalsuch, immunitygranted fromimmunityfrom stateprosecution law while acting in thestate coursecourts offor hiscrimes employment",against andstate inlaw". Colorado v.

Symes,(d) 286Decades U.S.510(1932),thecourtstated,"Federalofficersandemployeesarenot,later, merelybecausetheyaresuch,grantedimmunityfromprosecutioninstatethe courtsUnited forStates crimessupreme againstcourt continued to recognize the role of state law".law in holding federal officials accountable for legal violations, noting in Wheeldin v.

(d) Decades later, the United States supreme court continued to -2- 005 recognizetheroleofstatelawinholdingfederalofficialsaccountablefor legal violations, noting in Wheeldin v.

(e) When the United States supreme court recognized a federal lawcauseoflaw cause of action for violation of certain constitutionalrightsinBivensconstitutional rights in Bivens v.

388 (1971), that cause of action was in addition to, rather than instead of, traditional state law remedies.EvenoneofthedissentingjusticesinBivensnotedtheongoingremedies. role of state courts,ting, "The task of evaluating the pros and cons of creating judicial remedies for particular wrongs is a matter for Congress and the legislatures of the States".

(f)EvenoneofthedissentingjusticesinBivensnotedtheongoingroleofstate Morecourts, recently,writing, congress"The hastask madeof federalevaluating statutory law the exclusivepros remedyforand certaincons claimsof soundingcreating injudicial tort,remedies butfor thisparticular exclusivitywrongs specificallyis "does not extend or apply to a civilmatter actionfor againstCongress anand employeethe legislatures of the GovernmentStates". [.

.](f) whichisbroughtforaMore violationrecently, ofcongress has made federal statutory law the Constitutionexclusive ofremedy for certain claims sounding in tort, but this exclusivity specifically"does not extend or applyto a civil action against an employee oftheGovernment[...]whichisbroughtforaviolationoftheConstitution oftheUnitedStates",28U.S.C.sec.2679.Theprimesponsoroflegislation amending the Unitedfederal States","Tort 28Claims U.S.C.Act" to provide for limited exclusivity took pains to clarify, "We make special provisions here to make clear that PAGE 2-SENATE BILL 26-005 the more controversial issue of constitutional torts is not covered by this bill.

sec.

2679.

The prime sponsorof legislationamendingthefederal"TortClaimsAct"toprovide forlimitedexclusivitytookpainstoclarify,"Wemakespecialprovisions heretomakeclearthatthemorecontroversialissueofconstitutionaltorts is not covered by this bill.

(g) In 2022, in declining to extend the scope of the Bivens action inEgbertv.Boule,596U.S.in Egbert v.

482Boule, (2022),596 theU.S. UnitedStatessupremecourt observed that legislatures, not courts, are the better branches of government to fashion damages remedies;

-3-482 005(2022), (h)the Initsmostrecentlycompletedterm,theUnitedStatessupremeUnited States supreme court declined,observedthatlegislatures,notcourts,arethebetterbranchesofgovernment into Martinfashion v.damages remedies;

(h) In its most recently completed term, the United States,States 145supreme S.courtdeclined,inMartinv.UnitedStates,145S.Ct.1689(2025),toextend the doctrine of supremacy clause immunity beyond its traditional criminal law context;

Ct.(i) Violating the federal constitutional rights of residents of the UnitedStateshasneverbeenandcanneverbe"necessaryandproper"tothe execution of the laws and powers of the United States within the meaning of article I, section 8, clause 18 of the United States constitution;

1689and (2025),(j) toIn extendenacting this act, the doctrineColorado ofgeneral supremacyclauseassembly immunitybeyondaffirms its traditionallongstanding criminaland lawrightful context;role as a sovereign state in providing forumin its courts for adjudication of claims of federal constitutional violations.

(i)Violating the federal constitutional rights of residents of the United States has never been and can never be "necessaryand proper" to the execution of the laws and powers of the United States within the meaningofarticleI,section8,clause18oftheUnitedStatesconstitution;

and (j)In enacting this act, the Colorado general assemblyaffirms its longstanding and rightful role as a sovereign state in providing forum in its courts for adjudication of claims of federal constitutional violations.

In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 13-20-130213-20-1303 as follows:

13-20-1302.13-20-1303.

Civil action for violation of constitutional rights duringimmigrationenforcement-relief-attorneyfees-timelimittoduring immigration enforcement - relief - attorney fees - time limit to commence action - definition.