Federal authorities file lawsuits against Colorado and Denver, accusations of obstructing immigration enforcement procedures.
HEY THERE BUDDY!
Colorado and Denver are getting sued by the Department of Justice for allegedly messing with immigration enforcement, the latest move by the Trump administration to take on so-called sanctuary cities and policies.
The lawsuit claims that Colorado and Denver have passed "sanctuary laws" which violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Basically, the feds say they got the exclusive rights to handle immigration matters.
There's no official definition for sanctuary policies or cities, but they generally mean limited cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE enforces immigration laws everywhere, but they like some help from the states and local authorities, especially for big-time deportations. They also want police and sheriffs to notify ICE about people they want taken out of the country and to keep them locked up until ICE guys show up to grab 'em.
The DOJ has been filing similar lawsuits against cities like Chicago and Rochester, New York.
Now, the DOJ says that Colorado's "sanctuary policies" allowed the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua to seize control of an apartment complex in the Denver suburb of Aurora. But local officials say Trump's claims that the gang took over large chunks of the city are a bit exaggerated. They admit, though, that the apartment complex was a mess, full of dudes tied to Tren de Aragua.
Friday's lawsuit names Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, the state Legislature, Denver Mayor Mike Johnson, and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser as defendants. Polis's spokesperson says that Colorado ain't a "sanctuary state" and they regularly work with law enforcement from all over. If the courts say that any of Colorado's laws ain't valid, then they'll follow the ruling. They're not gonna discuss the lawsuit itself, though.
Republicans in Congress have been pushing officials in Democratic-led cities to work with the Trump administration on immigration. They hauled the mayors of Denver, Boston, New York, and Chicago before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform last month. The mayors, however, pushed back and defended their cities as welcoming places, not dangerous havens. They also called on Congress to pass immigration reform.
MOST POPULAR STORIES OF THE MOMENT
- Two Washington sites among the 11 best lakes to visit in the U.S.
- Judge blocks Trump's executive order targeting an elite law firm, a major setback for his revenge campaign
- A mother and father got booted out, but what happened to their toddler? Read more
- Trump says he's renaming Veterans Day to "Victory Day for World War I"
- Seven people died after a truck and tour van collided near Yellowstone, cops say
Enrichment Data:By May 2025, sanctuary jurisdictions face renewed federal pressure due to recent executive actions. Some legal challenges against Colorado and Denver remain a gray area, but the general legal landscape is as follows:
Federal Executive ActionsPresident Trump's April 2025 executive order seeks to enforce immigration compliance by publishing lists of sanctuary jurisdictions and threatening funding cuts. This move mirrors previous attempts, such as the 2018 challenges to California's sanctuary laws, which were later blocked by courts.
State-Level Anti-Sanctuary EffortsNine states have passed anti-sanctuary bills in 2025, with Colorado not being on the list. Denver maintains its sanctuary policies limiting local law enforcement's collaboration with ICE, which aligns with principles upheld in federal cases like those protecting California's policies.
Constitutional FrameworkCourts have historically ruled that the federal government cannot compel states to enforce immigration laws. Federal attempts to withhold funding face legal hurdles due to precedents like the 2020 case, New York v. Trump, which blocked similar efforts.
Key Takeaway: While Colorado/Denver-specific litigation is not detailed, ongoing nationwide challenges revolve around:
- Funding conditions: Federal attempts to tie grants to immigration enforcement cooperation.
- Information-sharing mandates: Disputes over requiring local authorities to detain individuals for ICE.
For Denver, existing policies remain legally defensible under current interpretations, but increased federal scrutiny may trigger new legal battles in 2025.
- Seattle is also under scrutiny for its sanctuary policies, as the city's regulations on cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) mirror those in Colorado and Denver.
- The politics surrounding immigration and the role of sanctuary cities like Seattle, Colorado, and Denver have become increasingly contentious, with lawsuits and policy-and-legislation debates dominating general news and crime-and-justice discussions.
- As the Trump administration continues to crackdown on sanctuary cities, lawsuits have become a common tool in the war-and-conflicts between federal authorities and these jurisdictions.
- In the definition of sanctuary cities and policies, limited cooperation with ICE and a lack of action to enforce federal immigration laws are key characteristics.
- A recent development in the Colorado-DOJ lawsuit involves allegations that Denver's "sanctuary policies" allowed the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua to take control of an apartment complex in Aurora, Colorado, which raises concerns about crime-and-justice and the potential implications for other sanctuary cities.
- In response to the DOJ lawsuit, Democratic governors like Washington's Jay Inslee, who has also been criticized for Seattle's sanctuary city status, have advocated for policy-and-legislation changes at the state level to address these issues and ensure cooperation with federal immigration enforcement while maintaining welcoming communities for immigrants.
