DENVER (KDVR) — A Colorado District Court judge dismissed, with prejudice, a lawsuit that sought to try and force the state of Colorado to allow sheriff’s deputies to work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents .
The lawsuit was filed by Douglas, El Paso, Mesa, Rio Blanco, Elbert and Garfield counties, which said they represent 25% of the state’s population, arguing that the state and Gov. Jared Polis instituted “unconstitutional immigration laws.” Now that the case has been dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled for the same issues.
Aurora police chief: Armed apartment invasion 100% gang activity
In a press conference held on April 15, Douglas County Commissioner George Teal said the state’s immigration crisis is due to federal policies along the southern border that “resulted in an unlimited string of illegal immigrants into our communities.” The lawsuit was fighting two state laws:
- House Bill 19-1124, “ Protect Colorado Residents From Federal Government Overreach,” according to the text , allows law enforcement to cooperate or assist federal immigration authorities in the execution of a federal warrant, but prohibits law enforcement from arresting or detaining individuals based solely on a civil immigration detainer
- The measure also stops probation officers from giving someone’s personal information to federal immigration authorities
- The measure also ensures that individuals who are to be interviewed via telephone or video by a federal immigration authority are informed of their rights
- House Bill 23-1100, “ Restrict Government Involvement in Immigration Detention, ” prevents state or local government agency employees from entering into intergovernmental agreements allowing for law enforcement to rent bed space to ICE
- The measure also terminated two such agreements in the state
The lawsuit is complex, diving into how county and federal officials’ jurisdictions overlap, and discussing when a state legislature’s power is limited. The counties argued they suffered a tangible injury through the two house bills because they were “denied a legal right afforded in the State Constitution” and were “denied a lawful use of their real property.”
In the motion to dismiss filed Monday, the judge wrote that the arguments “can be best summarized as interpreting the Intergovernmental Relationships Provision as an unfettered right” that permits governmental bodies “to contract or cooperate with other governmental entities without limitation.”…