Colorado DOC Tightens ICE Cooperation After Two Inmate Arrests

(COLORADO) Colorado’s Department of Corrections has tightened limits on cooperation with ICE in 2025 after high‑profile arrests of two inmates and a sweeping new law, SB 25‑276, signed on May 23.

The shift restricts data sharing, facility access, and release coordination, pushing agencies to require court warrants. State leaders say these steps support due process and public safety across Colorado.

What SB 25‑276 changes statewide

SB 25‑276 is now the main framework directing how state and local bodies interact with ICE. It expands earlier protections and adds clear enforcement tools.

Key provisions include:

• Warrant standard for data and access: Local governments and the judicial and legislative branches must confirm a valid judicial warrant before sharing protected data with ICE or allowing nonpublic access.
• Sensitive‑location protections: Schools, hospitals, and childcare centers are off‑limits for ICE access to private areas without a warrant.
• Penalties for violations: Fines up to $50,000 can be imposed on local entities that break the rules, with revenue going to the Immigration Legal Defense Fund.
• Broader scope: The law aligns state, local, judicial, and legislative practices, going beyond earlier statutes that focused mainly on executive‑branch agencies.

Sponsors introduced the bill in April 2025 after headline‑making raids and detentions in the Denver metro area. They framed the measure as a response to tactics seen during 2025 enforcement shifts under President Trump.

How DOC cooperation with ICE is changing in practice

Corrections had already faced limits under prior law. SB 25‑276 tightens those limits by codifying when and how information and access can be granted.

What changes on the ground:

• Release coordination
  • No extended holds for civil ICE detainers.
  • Transfers at release require a federal judicial warrant or court order, consistent with HB19‑1124 and reinforced by SB 25‑276.
• Notifications and data
  • Routine release alerts and sharing of personal details are narrowed.
  • Agencies should verify legal authority before sharing protected data.
• Facility access
  • Nonpublic areas remain restricted.
  • Principle: no facilitation of civil arrests within state facilities without proper judicial authority.
• Compliance risk
  • While fines in SB 25‑276 target local entities, the statute signals tighter oversight across the system.
  • Agencies should update policies, training, and record‑keeping.

Recent ICE activity and state response

In July, the ACLU of Colorado released FOIA records showing ICE considered a major detention capacity expansion after a $45 billion federal appropriation for nationwide operations.

Documents identified six private, currently idle sites in Colorado, including:

• Walsenburg
• Colorado Springs
• Hudson
• La Junta
• Potential additions at GEO’s Aurora complex
• Cheyenne Mountain Center

The documents referenced about 1,360 existing beds at Aurora with a proposed +128, and a +700 concept at Cheyenne Mountain.

Governor Jared Polis’s office said ICE had not shared specific plans with the state and urged a focus on violent offenders, not residents without criminal records. Colorado law since 2023 bars public jails and prisons from contracting to detain civil immigration detainees — which is why the 2025 sites under review are private.

What this means for people in custody and families

Families want predictability at release and fair access to legal help. Under the updated framework:

• No “extra” hold time for ICE detainers without a court order.
• Reduced risk of unannounced pickups at facility gates without a judicial warrant.
• More legal support may flow as SB 25‑276 directs penalty revenue to the Immigration Legal Defense Fund.

For ICE, the message is operational: rely on judicial warrants and expect limited access to protected areas. In Colorado, future detention growth would likely run through private facilities, not public jails.

Key takeaway: Without a judicial warrant or court order, individuals should not be held past their scheduled release for civil immigration enforcement.

Procedures agencies should follow now

Frontline staff need clear steps. Under current law:

1. If ICE requests a hold/detainer:
   • Do not extend custody beyond the scheduled release for a civil detainer.
   • Require a federal judicial warrant or court order to transfer at release.
2. If ICE seeks personal data or nonpublic access:
   • Deny unless presented with a valid court warrant or another legal requirement.
   • Apply sensitive‑location limits to schools, hospitals, and childcare centers.
3. Documentation and training:
   • Log all requests, legal process received, and agency responses.
   • Maintain training records and clear escalation paths for compliance concerns.

Politics and the legal backdrop

Colorado’s direction in 2025 builds on prior statutes:

• HB19‑1124: Bars arrests or detainers based solely on immigration status; no extended holds for civil detainers; allows court‑ordered transfers.
• SB21‑131: Limits disclosure of personal identifying information to ICE unless required by law or court order.
• SB20‑083: Prohibits civil arrests in courthouses and on the way to and from court; includes civil liability and Attorney General enforcement.

A counter‑proposal, SB 25‑047 (introduced Jan. 21, 2025), sought to undo these limits, allow broader reporting to ICE, and reopen local contracting with federal detention. It has not been enacted.

Outlook for late 2025

• Expect more guidance and training for agencies as SB 25‑276 is implemented.
• ICE may continue exploring private facilities in Colorado.
• Legal tensions could arise between state rules and federal field operations depending on how warrants and access are handled.

Sponsors have acknowledged uncertainty about ICE adherence to state restrictions during on‑the‑ground actions.

For broader national tracking, VisaVerge.com reports on ongoing debates over state–federal cooperation and detention capacity.

Official resources

For the full text and history of SB 25‑276, visit the Colorado General Assembly’s official page: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb25-276. This is the primary legal source for the statute’s scope, penalties, and implementation timeline.

Practical takeaways

• If you’re in custody or supporting someone who is:
  • Ask the facility about release timing and whether any judicial warrant has been presented.
  • Without a warrant, the person should not be held past release for ICE.
• If you work for a state or local agency:
  • Review your data‑sharing, visitor access, and release protocols.
  • Post clear staff guidance on SB 25‑276’s warrant standard and sensitive‑location rules.
• If you’re an attorney or advocate:
  • Monitor records of ICE requests and agency responses.
  • If you see potential violations at the local level, SB 25‑276 allows penalties up to $50,000, with funds directed to legal defense for immigrants.
• If you’re an employer or community leader:
  • Share accurate information with employees and families about warrants, sensitive locations, and the limits on state and local cooperation.
• If you’re with ICE or another federal agency:
  • Plan for warrant‑based access and data requests.
  • Do not expect routine release notifications or entry to nonpublic spaces without court authorization.

Colorado’s policy path is now set: SB 25‑276 tightens when and how state, local, and even judicial and legislative entities can work with ICE. The law aims to keep decisions tied to judicial warrants, reduce surprise transfers at the gate, and steer penalties toward legal help. As detention plans evolve and agencies refine training, residents should see clearer rules, fewer surprises, and better accountability.