Key Takeaways
• Governor Polis delays ICE subpoena compliance until June 23, 2025, amid a whistleblower lawsuit.
• ICE subpoena demands personal data on 35 sponsors of unaccompanied migrant children, citing civil law.
• Lawsuit claims subpoena violates Colorado privacy laws; state workers face fines up to $50,000 each.
Colorado Governor Jared Polis has agreed to delay compliance with a controversial Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) subpoena until at least June 23, 2025. This decision comes as a whistleblower lawsuit, filed by a top state labor official, moves through the courts. The case has sparked a heated debate about privacy, state versus federal power, and the rights of immigrants and their sponsors in Colorado.
What Happened: The ICE Subpoena and State Response
On April 24, 2025, ICE sent an administrative subpoena to the Colorado Department of Labor. The agency demanded detailed personal information about 35 people who are sponsoring unaccompanied migrant children. ICE asked for:
- Home addresses
- Phone numbers
- Email addresses
- Unemployment benefit filings
- Family and Medical Leave Insurance records
- Employer information
- Quarterly wage reports
ICE said it needed this information for “investigative activities to locate unaccompanied alien children” and to “ensure that the children are being properly cared for.” However, the subpoena was not issued by a court and did not mention any open criminal investigation. Instead, it cited civil law, not criminal statutes.
Governor Jared Polis and his administration initially resisted the subpoena. But according to a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Scott Moss, director of Colorado’s Division of Labor Standards and Statistics, the governor later reversed his position. Moss claims that Polis ordered state officials to comply with ICE’s request or face termination, even though state law prohibits such cooperation in civil immigration matters.
The Whistleblower Lawsuit: Who Filed and Why
Scott Moss filed the whistleblower lawsuit on June 5, 2025. He alleges that Governor Polis’s order to comply with the ICE subpoena violates Colorado laws that protect the privacy of immigrants and their sponsors. Moss says he was pressured to break the law and risked losing his job if he refused.
The lawsuit quickly gained support from major organizations, including:
- Colorado WINS (the union for over 27,000 state workers)
- Towards Justice (a civil rights group)
- Colorado AFL-CIO (a labor organization)
These groups joined Moss as plaintiffs, accusing Governor Polis of “colluding” with ICE and breaking state privacy laws. They argue that the governor’s actions undermine trust in state government and put vulnerable communities at risk.
The Laws at the Center of the Dispute
Colorado has strong laws that limit how state agencies can share personal information with federal immigration authorities. These laws, signed by Governor Polis himself in 2021 and again in May 2025, say that government agencies and employees:
“Shall not disclose… personal identifying information that is not publicly available information for the purpose of investigating for, participating in, cooperating with, or assisting in federal immigration enforcement, including enforcement of civil immigration laws.”
The plaintiffs argue that the ICE subpoena is for civil, not criminal, purposes. They point out that a box on the subpoena that would indicate a child exploitation investigation was left blank. The subpoena also cites civil law, not criminal law.
If state employees break these privacy laws, they could face personal penalties of up to $50,000 per violation.
For more information on how state and local governments interact with federal immigration enforcement, readers can visit the U.S. Department of Justice’s official page on immigration enforcement.
Governor Polis’s Defense: Child Safety or Legal Overreach?
Governor Polis and his team defend their decision by saying they are acting to protect children. Shelby Wieman, the governor’s press secretary, said:
“The Governor is committed to preventing the illegal exploitation and trafficking of children. The decision to respond to this federal subpoena due to concerns about potential crimes against vulnerable minors was carefully considered in accordance with Colorado law, which allows for sharing information to support timely criminal investigations.”
Eric Maruyama, another spokesperson, added:
“Helping our federal law enforcement partners locate and, if necessary, rescue children being abused and trafficked is not only in line with the law but also a moral imperative.”
The governor’s office has expressed regret about the delay caused by the lawsuit, saying it is “very unfortunate” that the state cannot act quickly to protect children while the case is in court.
Critics Push Back: Privacy, Trust, and Political Fallout
The governor’s decision has sparked strong criticism from many sides, including his own party, labor unions, and immigrant advocacy groups.
Democratic Lawmakers Speak Out
State Senator Julie Gonzales, who sponsored the privacy laws at the heart of the lawsuit, was especially critical. She said:
“Little did I know that Governor Polis would apparently ignore his own advisers, his agency directors, and the very language he himself signed into law in order to bend the knee to a bunch of ICE goons who were too lazy to go and talk to a judge.”
Representative Elizabeth Velasco of Glenwood Springs warned that such actions erode public trust:
“These type of actions erode the public trust that people have in government. We continue to tell people to do the right thing, to follow the laws, to do what we ask. But people are scared to share their private information and this is why.”
Latino and Immigrant Advocacy Groups Respond
The Colorado Democratic Latino Caucus called the governor’s actions a “betrayal to the immigrant community of our state,” saying he has turned his back on some of the most vulnerable residents.
Labor Unions Join the Lawsuit
Diane Byrne, president of Colorado WINS, said at a news briefing:
“The actions that Gov. Polis has taken are undermining public trust in our state government.”
She also thanked Scott Moss for “having the courage to stand up for what is right and file this suit.”
Legal Arguments: Civil vs. Criminal Enforcement
A key point in the lawsuit is whether the ICE subpoena is for a criminal or civil investigation. Plaintiffs argue that the subpoena is clearly for civil enforcement, not criminal. Attorney Seligman, representing the plaintiffs, said:
“There is nothing on the face of this subpoena to suggest this is related to a criminal investigation. It cites the civil code. It has not been through any sort of judicial process. It was not issued by a court or approved by a court. There’s nothing here to suggest that this is related to a criminal investigation.”
If the subpoena was for a criminal investigation, state law might allow sharing some information. But since it is for civil immigration enforcement, the plaintiffs say state law clearly prohibits compliance.
What’s at Stake: Implications for Immigrants, State Workers, and Policy
This legal fight has big implications for several groups:
Immigrants and Their Sponsors
- Privacy at Risk: If the state gives ICE the requested information, sponsors of unaccompanied children could face immigration enforcement, even if they have done nothing wrong.
- Chilling Effect: Immigrants may be less likely to sponsor children or seek help from state agencies if they fear their information could be shared with ICE.
State Workers
- Legal Jeopardy: Employees who follow the governor’s order could face personal fines of up to $50,000 per violation.
- Job Security: Workers like Scott Moss say they are being forced to choose between following the law and keeping their jobs.
State-Federal Relations
- State Autonomy: The case tests how much power states have to set their own rules about privacy and cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
- Federal Pressure: ICE’s use of administrative subpoenas, rather than court orders, raises questions about due process and oversight.
Political Impact
- Governor Polis’s Reputation: The case has damaged the governor’s standing with key allies, including labor unions and immigrant advocates.
- Future Legislation: Lawmakers may seek to strengthen privacy laws or clarify when, if ever, state agencies can share information with ICE.
Timeline: Key Dates and Next Steps
- April 24, 2025: ICE issues the administrative subpoena to Colorado’s Department of Labor.
- June 5, 2025: Scott Moss files the whistleblower lawsuit against Governor Polis.
- June 9, 2025: Major organizations join the lawsuit as plaintiffs.
- June 10, 2025: Governor Polis agrees to delay compliance with the ICE subpoena until after the next court hearing.
- June 23, 2025: Next court hearing scheduled. The judge will consider a request for a temporary restraining order and injunction to block the state from sharing information with ICE.
Broader Context: State Laws and Federal Immigration Enforcement
Colorado is one of several states that have passed laws to limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, especially for civil enforcement. These laws are meant to protect the privacy of immigrants and encourage them to interact with state agencies without fear.
However, ICE has increasingly used administrative subpoenas to get around these laws. Unlike court orders, administrative subpoenas do not require a judge’s approval. This has led to legal battles in other states as well.
According to analysis from VisaVerge.com, the growing use of ICE subpoenas has put state governments in a difficult position. They must balance the demands of federal agencies with their own laws and the rights of their residents.
What Happens Next: Possible Outcomes
The judge’s decision on June 23, 2025, could have far-reaching effects:
- If the judge blocks compliance: Colorado may set a strong example for other states trying to protect immigrant privacy. State workers would not have to choose between following the law and keeping their jobs.
- If the judge allows compliance: Other states may face pressure to give in to ICE subpoenas, even if their laws say otherwise. Immigrants and their sponsors could face more risk of enforcement.
Either way, the case will likely shape how states respond to federal immigration enforcement for years to come.
Practical Guidance for Stakeholders
If you are an immigrant, sponsor, or state worker in Colorado, here are some steps to consider:
- Know Your Rights: Understand what information state agencies can and cannot share with federal immigration authorities. Review the privacy laws that protect you.
- Seek Legal Advice: If you receive a subpoena or are asked to share information, consult with an immigration attorney or legal aid group.
- Stay Informed: Follow updates on the lawsuit and any changes to state or federal policy.
For official information on immigration enforcement and your rights, visit the U.S. Department of Justice’s immigration enforcement page.
Conclusion: A Test Case for State Privacy and Immigration Policy
The legal battle over the ICE subpoena, Governor Jared Polis’s response, and the whistleblower lawsuit filed by Scott Moss have put Colorado at the center of a national debate. The case highlights the tension between protecting vulnerable children and upholding privacy laws designed to shield immigrants and their sponsors from federal enforcement.
As the next court hearing approaches, all eyes are on Colorado. The outcome will not only affect the 35 sponsors at the heart of the case but could also set a precedent for how states across the United States 🇺🇸 handle similar requests from ICE in the future.
Stakeholders—including immigrants, state workers, and policymakers—should watch this case closely and prepare for possible changes in how personal information is handled in the context of immigration enforcement.
Learn Today
ICE Subpoena → A legal demand by ICE for information, not always court-approved, often used in immigration investigations.
Whistleblower Lawsuit → A legal complaint filed by someone exposing alleged illegal or unethical governmental actions.
Civil Immigration Enforcement → Government actions enforcing immigration laws without criminal charges, often administrative or regulatory.
Privacy Laws → Regulations protecting personal data from unauthorized disclosure, especially in immigration contexts.
Administrative Subpoena → A request for information issued by a government agency without court approval.
This Article in a Nutshell
Colorado’s Governor postpones compliance with an ICE subpoena demanding personal information on migrant child sponsors. A whistleblower lawsuit challenges this move, citing state privacy laws protecting immigrants. The case highlights tensions between federal immigration enforcement and state protections, affecting immigrants, workers, and governmental trust until the June 2025 court hearing.
— By VisaVerge.com
