Key Takeaways
• Denver judge blocked Colorado governor from releasing personal sponsor data to ICE on June 25, 2025.
• The injunction protects about 35 sponsors’ employment and contact information from federal immigration subpoenas.
• Colorado laws prohibit sharing personal data with ICE unless tied to a criminal investigation.
A Denver judge has issued a detailed and carefully limited injunction in a case that highlights the ongoing tension between state privacy laws and federal immigration enforcement. On June 25, 2025, Judge A. Bruce Jones of the Denver District Court blocked Colorado Governor Jared Polis from forcing certain state employees to hand over sensitive personal information about sponsors of unaccompanied immigrant children to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This ruling comes after ICE issued a federal immigration subpoena demanding detailed employment and contact information for about 35 adults who sponsor these children in Colorado.
The case, which has drawn attention from legal experts, immigrant advocates, and lawmakers, centers on whether the state must comply with a federal request that appears to conflict with Colorado’s own privacy protections. The outcome could shape how other states respond to similar federal immigration subpoenas in the future.
What Happened: The Lead-Up to the Injunction
In April 2025, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment received a federal immigration subpoena from ICE. The agency requested a wide range of information about sponsors of unaccompanied immigrant children, including:
- State wage reports
- Employer contact information
- Unemployment benefit filings
- Family and medical leave records
- Addresses, telephone numbers, and emails
ICE claimed the information was needed to investigate possible child abuse. However, no evidence of any crime involving the sponsors was presented to the state.
Governor Polis initially decided in May 2025 to comply with the subpoena. But this decision was quickly challenged. Scott Moss, director of Colorado’s Division of Labor Standards and Statistics, filed a lawsuit against the governor, arguing that the subpoena was not related to a criminal investigation and that sharing the information would violate state law.
The Judge’s Ruling: A Nuanced Approach
Judge A. Bruce Jones issued a preliminary injunction that specifically applies to Scott Moss and the employees he supervises. The order blocks them from disclosing the requested personal data to ICE. However, the judge was careful to note that his ruling does not completely prevent Governor Polis from finding other ways to respond to the federal immigration subpoena if he chooses.
Judge Jones found that the governor’s plan to comply with ICE’s request would likely violate Colorado laws passed in 2021 and 2025. These laws prohibit sharing personal information with ICE unless it is directly tied to a criminal investigation. The judge emphasized that the state must follow its own privacy rules, especially when there is no clear evidence of wrongdoing by the sponsors.
Why This Matters: Privacy, Immigration, and State Law
The case raises important questions about how much power federal immigration authorities have to demand information from states, especially when state laws are designed to protect the privacy of immigrants and their families.
Key points from the ruling:
- The injunction protects the privacy of sponsors of unaccompanied immigrant children by stopping the forced release of their personal and employment information.
- It reinforces Colorado’s commitment to shielding immigrant data from federal immigration enforcement unless there is a clear criminal case.
- The decision complicates ICE’s efforts to locate and possibly deport sponsors of unaccompanied immigrant children, which could affect how the agency operates in other states with similar privacy laws.
Who’s Involved: Stakeholders and Their Positions
Several key figures and groups are at the center of this legal battle:
- Governor Jared Polis: Initially wanted to comply with the federal immigration subpoena but faced strong legal and political opposition.
- Scott Moss: The state labor official who sued to block the release of information, arguing that the subpoena was a “fishing expedition” rather than a legitimate criminal investigation.
- Judge A. Bruce Jones: Issued the injunction, balancing state law with federal demands.
- ICE: Sought detailed personal and employment information about sponsors, claiming it was needed for a criminal investigation.
- State lawmakers: Some Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Mike Weissman and Julie Gonzales, testified against the governor’s plan to comply with the subpoena.
- Legal representatives: Laura Wolf, Moss’s lawyer, argued that the subpoena was not based on any evidence of crime and would violate state privacy laws.
What Information Did ICE Want?
ICE’s subpoena was broad and detailed. The agency asked for:
- State wage reports: Records showing how much sponsors earn and where they work.
- Employer contact information: Names, addresses, and phone numbers of employers.
- Unemployment benefit filings: Details about any unemployment benefits sponsors have received.
- Family and medical leave records: Information about any leave taken for family or medical reasons.
- Personal contact details: Addresses, telephone numbers, and emails of the sponsors.
This level of detail raised concerns among state officials and immigrant advocates about privacy and the potential for misuse of the data.
The Legal Process: Step by Step
The case unfolded through several key steps:
- ICE issues a federal immigration subpoena to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, seeking information about sponsors of unaccompanied immigrant children.
- Governor Polis initially orders compliance with the subpoena, planning to release the requested data.
- Scott Moss files a lawsuit to block the disclosure, citing state privacy laws that limit sharing information with ICE.
- A preliminary injunction hearing is held before Denver District Court Judge A. Bruce Jones.
- Judge Jones issues a limited injunction, preventing Moss and his supervised employees from releasing the information.
- Governor Polis retains the option to comply with the subpoena through other means, pending further legal developments.
The Arguments: Privacy vs. Enforcement
The main argument from Moss and his legal team was that the subpoena was not linked to any active criminal investigation. They called it a “fishing expedition,” meaning ICE was looking for information without having a specific crime in mind. Colorado’s privacy laws, passed in 2021 and 2025, were designed to stop exactly this kind of broad data sharing unless there is clear evidence of a crime.
Governor Polis’s office argued that ICE needed the information for a criminal investigation into child abuse. However, Joe Barela, executive director of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, testified that he was not aware of any evidence that the children were not being cared for or that there was an active criminal investigation.
What Does the Injunction Mean for Immigrant Sponsors?
For the 35 adults who sponsor unaccompanied immigrant children in Colorado, the injunction offers important protection. Their personal and employment information cannot be handed over to ICE by Moss or his team without further legal action. This helps shield them from possible immigration enforcement actions that could result from the release of their data.
Key protections include:
- Privacy of personal and employment information
- Protection from possible deportation or legal action based on shared data
- Reinforcement of state laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement
Broader Implications: What Could Happen Next?
The Denver judge’s ruling could have ripple effects beyond Colorado. Other states with similar privacy laws may look to this case as a guide for how to respond to federal immigration subpoenas. The decision also raises questions about the limits of federal power when it comes to demanding state-held information.
Possible future developments:
- Further court hearings or appeals as the case continues.
- Legislative reviews of state privacy laws to clarify how they apply to federal immigration requests.
- Changes in how ICE approaches subpoenas in states with strong privacy protections.
- Potential for other states to adopt similar laws to protect immigrant data.
Expert Perspectives: What Are People Saying?
Legal experts see the injunction as a strong statement in favor of state privacy protections. They argue that states have the right to set their own rules about when and how personal information can be shared, especially when there is no evidence of criminal activity.
Immigrant rights advocates have welcomed the ruling. They say it helps protect vulnerable communities from intrusive federal investigations that can lead to fear, mistrust, and even family separation.
Critics of Governor Polis’s initial decision to comply with the subpoena argue that sharing such detailed information could put immigrant sponsors at risk and undermine trust between immigrant communities and the state.
ICE, for its part, maintains that the information is needed for a criminal investigation. However, as noted in court testimony, no public evidence has been provided to support this claim.
How Does This Affect Federal-State Relations?
The case highlights the ongoing struggle between state governments and federal agencies over immigration enforcement. States like Colorado 🇺🇸 have passed laws to protect the privacy of immigrants and their families, while federal agencies like ICE continue to seek information to support their enforcement efforts.
This tension is likely to continue as more states consider privacy laws and as federal agencies look for new ways to gather information. The outcome of this case could influence how these battles play out in the future.
What Should Sponsors and Immigrant Families Know?
If you are a sponsor of an unaccompanied immigrant child in Colorado 🇺🇸, this ruling means your personal and employment information is currently protected from being shared with ICE by certain state employees. However, the situation could change as the case moves forward.
Practical steps for sponsors:
- Stay informed about updates in the case by checking official state websites and legal advocacy groups.
- Know your rights under Colorado privacy laws, which limit the sharing of your information with federal immigration authorities.
- Seek legal advice if you are contacted by state or federal officials regarding your sponsorship of an immigrant child.
For more information about your rights and privacy protections, you can visit the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment website, which provides updates on state laws and policies.
The Bigger Picture: Immigration Policy and Privacy
This case is part of a larger debate about how much information states should share with federal immigration authorities. As more states pass laws to protect immigrant data, federal agencies may face new challenges in carrying out their enforcement duties.
Key issues at stake:
- Balancing privacy and enforcement: How can states protect the privacy of their residents while still cooperating with federal investigations when necessary?
- Protecting vulnerable populations: Unaccompanied immigrant children and their sponsors are often in difficult situations. Protecting their privacy can help prevent further harm.
- Setting legal precedents: The outcome of this case could influence future court decisions and state laws across the country.
What’s Next: Ongoing Legal and Political Developments
The case is not over. Judge Jones’s injunction is preliminary, meaning it could change as the court hears more arguments. Governor Polis may look for other ways to comply with the federal immigration subpoena, and ICE may adjust its approach based on the ruling.
Lawmakers in Colorado 🇺🇸 and other states may also review their privacy laws to make sure they are clear and effective. Legal challenges and appeals are possible, especially if the case sets a precedent for how states handle federal immigration requests.
As reported by VisaVerge.com, this case is being closely watched by legal experts, immigrant advocates, and government officials across the country. The outcome could shape the future of privacy protections for immigrants and the balance of power between state and federal governments.
Actionable Takeaways
- Sponsors of unaccompanied immigrant children in Colorado 🇺🇸 are currently protected from having their personal and employment information shared with ICE by certain state employees.
- The legal situation is still developing. Stay updated by following official state sources and legal advocacy groups.
- If you are contacted by state or federal officials, seek legal advice before sharing any personal information.
- Other states may look to this case as a model for how to handle similar federal immigration subpoenas.
For more details on privacy laws and your rights as an immigrant or sponsor, visit the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment or consult with a trusted legal expert.
This case marks a critical moment in the ongoing debate over privacy, immigration enforcement, and the rights of unaccompanied immigrant children and their sponsors. The final outcome will have lasting effects on how states and the federal government work together—and sometimes clash—over immigration policy and the protection of personal information.
Learn Today
Injunction → A court order that temporarily stops an action until the case is resolved.
Immigration Subpoena → A federal legal demand for documents or information related to immigration enforcement.
Unaccompanied Immigrant Children → Minors who enter the U.S. without a parent or guardian.
Privacy Laws → State regulations protecting individuals’ personal information from unauthorized disclosure.
Federal-State Tension → Disagreements between state laws and federal enforcement powers, especially about immigration.
This Article in a Nutshell
A Denver judge halted Colorado’s forced disclosure of unaccompanied immigrant children sponsors’ data to ICE, emphasizing state privacy laws and the lack of criminal evidence. The injunction limits state employee actions but permits other federal subpoena responses, underscoring tensions between state privacy protections and federal immigration enforcement demands.
— By VisaVerge.com
