Unions and Whistleblower Respond to Ruling in Polis Immigration Lawsuit

Key Takeaways

• June 26, 2025: Judge blocks CDLE data transfer to ICE amid privacy law concerns.
• Scott Moss filed whistleblower lawsuit opposing sharing sponsor info, citing state privacy laws.
• Colorado laws SB21-131 and SB25-276 protect immigrant data unless in criminal investigations.

A high-stakes legal fight is unfolding in Colorado, where a whistleblower lawsuit has put Governor Jared Polis and the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) at the center of a heated debate over immigrant privacy, state law, and federal immigration enforcement. On June 26, 2025, a Denver district judge issued a temporary injunction that blocks the immediate transfer of sensitive sponsor information from CDLE to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This decision comes as the court weighs whether the state must comply with a federal subpoena for data on sponsors of unaccompanied immigrant children.

The case, which began with a subpoena from ICE in April 2025, has quickly become a flashpoint for immigrant rights, state employee protections, and the future of Colorado’s sanctuary policies. As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome could set a powerful precedent for how states balance privacy laws with federal immigration demands.

What Sparked the Whistleblower Lawsuit?

The controversy began on April 24, 2025, when ICE sent an administrative subpoena to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. The agency requested personal and employment information for 35 individuals who had sponsored unaccompanied minors. These sponsors are often family members or trusted adults who agree to care for children who arrive in the United States 🇺🇸 without parents or guardians.

Initially, Governor Jared Polis and CDLE leadership decided not to comply with the subpoena, citing state laws that protect immigrant privacy. However, in late May, the governor reversed course and instructed CDLE to provide the requested information to ICE. This sudden change alarmed many within the department and the broader immigrant community.

Scott Moss, the director of the Division of Labor Standards and Statistics at CDLE, strongly objected to the governor’s directive. Moss argued that sharing this data would violate Colorado law, put state employees at risk of personal penalties, and destroy trust with immigrant communities. On June 5, 2025, Moss filed a whistleblower lawsuit in Denver District Court, seeking to block the data transfer.

The Legal Battle: Key Dates and Developments

• April 24, 2025: ICE issues subpoena to CDLE for sponsor data.
• Early May 2025: Governor Polis initially refuses to comply.
• Late May 2025: Governor Polis reverses decision, orders compliance.
• June 5, 2025: Scott Moss files whistleblower lawsuit.
• June 23-25, 2025: Court hearings and Moss’s testimony.
• June 26, 2025: Judge issues temporary injunction, halting data transfer.

The temporary injunction means that no personal information will be sent to ICE until the court makes a final decision. This pause gives the court time to consider whether the governor’s order violates state law and whether the ICE subpoena qualifies as a criminal investigation, which is the only exception allowed under Colorado’s privacy protections.

What Are the Laws at Stake?

Colorado has some of the strongest privacy laws in the country when it comes to protecting immigrants from federal enforcement. Two key laws are at the heart of this case:

• SB21-131 (2021): This law prohibits state agencies from sharing personal information with federal immigration authorities, except in cases involving a criminal investigation.
• SB25-276 (2025): This law, signed earlier this year, further strengthens privacy protections and increases penalties for state employees who unlawfully share data.

Under these laws, state employees who break the rules can face personal liability of up to $50,000 per violation. The only exception is if the information is requested as part of a criminal investigation.

Governor Polis’s office argues that the ICE subpoena is related to a criminal investigation involving child exploitation, which would make it legal to share the data. However, during court hearings, no evidence of an active criminal case was presented. Joe Barela, the director of CDLE, testified that he was unaware of any criminal investigation tied to the subpoena.

Why Does This Matter for Immigrants and State Employees?

The outcome of this whistleblower lawsuit will have real consequences for several groups:

For Immigrant Communities

• Loss of Trust: Many immigrants already fear that sharing information with state agencies could lead to deportation or family separation. If the state gives sponsor data to ICE, this fear could grow, making immigrants less likely to report workplace abuse, wage theft, or unsafe conditions.
• Privacy at Risk: The case has led to a surge in tips and complaints from immigrants worried about their data privacy. Advocates warn that trust in state agencies could be severely damaged.

For State Employees

• Legal Jeopardy: If forced to comply with the governor’s order, state employees could be personally fined up to $50,000 for each violation of the privacy laws.
• Conflicting Duties: Employees are caught between following orders from the governor and obeying state law, putting them in a difficult and stressful position.

For Unions and Worker Advocates

• Chilling Effect: Unions and worker advocates say that if immigrants stop trusting state agencies, it will be harder to protect all workers from exploitation. Fewer people may come forward to report violations, making it easier for bad employers to break the law.

For State-Federal Relations

• Sanctuary Policies Tested: The case highlights the ongoing tension between Colorado’s sanctuary laws and federal immigration enforcement. How the court rules could influence how other states respond to similar federal requests.

Multiple Perspectives: What Are Stakeholders Saying?

This case has drawn strong reactions from many different groups:

• Scott Moss (Whistleblower): Moss says that complying with the ICE subpoena would break state law, hurt trust with immigrants, and put state workers at risk. He believes the subpoena is administrative, not criminal, and therefore not covered by the exception in the law.
• Governor Jared Polis: The governor’s office insists that the subpoena is legal because it relates to a criminal investigation. However, critics say there is no proof of such an investigation.
• Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition (CIRC): CIRC is outraged by the governor’s actions, calling them a betrayal of immigrant privacy protections. The group has promised to hold the administration accountable and push for stronger laws.
• Unions and Worker Advocates: These groups worry that the breach of trust will make it harder for immigrants to report workplace problems, which could harm all workers.
• ICE and Federal Government: ICE claims it needs the data for a child welfare investigation, but many believe the real goal is immigration enforcement.

How Did We Get Here? A Brief History of Colorado’s Sanctuary Laws

Over the past decade, Colorado has passed several laws to protect undocumented immigrants from federal enforcement:

• HB19-1124 (2019): Limits how much local law enforcement can help ICE.
• SB21-131 (2021): Restricts state employee cooperation with ICE and protects personal data.
• SB25-276 (2025): Adds even stronger privacy protections and higher penalties for violations.

These laws were passed in response to growing concerns about federal immigration crackdowns, especially during the Trump administration. In 2021, a similar controversy erupted when the Colorado DMV was found to be sharing data with ICE, leading to more scrutiny and new laws.

The Step-by-Step Process: How the Dispute Unfolded

1. ICE Issues Subpoena: ICE sent an administrative subpoena to CDLE, asking for detailed information about 35 sponsors of unaccompanied minors.
2. Internal Debate: CDLE leaders and the governor’s office discussed whether to comply. They first decided not to share the data, then changed their minds.
3. Whistleblower Objection: Scott Moss objected, saying the subpoena was not part of a criminal investigation and sharing the data would break state law.
4. Lawsuit Filed: Moss filed a whistleblower lawsuit in Denver District Court to block the data transfer.
5. Court Hearings: Testimony and legal arguments were presented, with Moss and others explaining the risks and legal issues.
6. Temporary Injunction: On June 26, 2025, the judge ordered a halt to the data transfer until a final decision is made.

Legal and Policy Analysis: What’s at Stake?

Legal experts say the main question is whether the ICE subpoena is really part of a criminal investigation. If it’s not, then sharing the data would break Colorado law. So far, there is no evidence in court that a criminal case exists.

Immigrant rights advocates argue that the governor’s actions could set a dangerous example, making it easier for federal agencies to get around state privacy laws. They worry this could lead to more aggressive enforcement and more families being separated.

Labor policy analysts warn that if immigrants lose trust in state agencies, workplace abuses could go unreported. This would hurt not just immigrants, but all workers in Colorado.

As reported by VisaVerge.com, the case is being closely watched by other states with similar sanctuary laws. The outcome could influence how states across the country respond to federal requests for immigrant data.

What Happens Next? The Future of the Case

The temporary injunction will stay in place until the court issues a final ruling. This could take weeks or even months. Depending on the outcome, several things could happen:

• If the court sides with the whistleblower: The state will not have to share sponsor data with ICE, and privacy protections will remain strong.
• If the court sides with the governor: State agencies may be forced to share data in similar cases, which could weaken privacy laws and trust with immigrant communities.
• Possible new laws: Lawmakers may try to clarify or strengthen privacy protections, especially if the court’s decision leaves room for interpretation.
• Federal response: The federal government could increase pressure on Colorado and other states, possibly by threatening to withhold funding or taking legal action.

Practical Guidance for Affected Individuals

If you are an immigrant, sponsor, or worker in Colorado, here are some steps you can take:

• Stay informed: Follow updates from the Denver District Court and trusted advocacy groups like the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition.
• Know your rights: Colorado law protects your personal information from being shared with federal immigration authorities, except in criminal cases.
• Report concerns: If you believe your data has been shared unlawfully, you can file a complaint with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment.
• Seek legal help: If you are contacted by ICE or have questions about your rights, reach out to a qualified immigration attorney or advocacy group.

For more information on Colorado’s labor and privacy policies, visit the official CDLE website.

Broader Implications: Why This Case Matters Beyond Colorado

This whistleblower lawsuit is about more than just one state or one group of sponsors. It raises big questions about:

• State vs. Federal Power: How much control do states have over their own privacy laws when federal agencies demand information?
• Sanctuary Policies: Will other states with similar laws face the same challenges? How will they respond?
• Immigrant Trust: What happens when immigrants lose faith in the promise that their information will be kept safe?
• Worker Protections: How can unions and advocates protect vulnerable workers if they are too afraid to come forward?

The answers to these questions will shape the future of immigration policy, labor rights, and state-federal relations across the United States 🇺🇸.

Conclusion: A Case with Lasting Impact

The whistleblower lawsuit against Governor Jared Polis and the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment is a major test of Colorado’s commitment to immigrant privacy and worker protections. With a temporary injunction now in place, the court’s final decision will have lasting effects on how the state—and possibly the nation—handles the delicate balance between privacy, law enforcement, and the rights of immigrants.

As the legal process continues, all eyes are on Denver. The outcome will not only affect the 35 sponsors at the center of the case, but also set a precedent for how states respond to federal immigration demands in the future. For now, immigrants, state employees, unions, and advocates are left waiting—and hoping—for a decision that protects both privacy and trust.

If you have questions about your rights or need support, contact the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment or the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition for help. Stay updated on the latest developments by checking official court records and trusted news sources.

Learn Today

Temporary Injunction → A court order temporarily stopping an action until a final legal decision is made.
Whistleblower Lawsuit → A legal case filed by an employee exposing illegal or unethical actions within an organization.
Administrative Subpoena → A government request for information not related to a criminal case, often used for investigations.
Sanctuary Policies → State or local laws limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to protect immigrants.
Personal Liability → Legal responsibility individuals face, including monetary penalties, for violating laws or rules.

This Article in a Nutshell

Colorado faces a legal battle over immigrant privacy as a judge temporarily halts data sharing with ICE. This case tests state sanctuary laws, state employee rights, and immigrant trust amid conflicting orders from Governor Polis.
— By VisaVerge.com