Members of Colorado’s Democratic delegation, including Rep. Brittany Pettersen, pressed federal officials for answers after an August visit to the Aurora ICE detention facility, citing an ongoing lawsuit and fresh claims that lawfully present immigrants are being detained in Colorado.
The visit on August 12, 2025 occurred as Reps. Jason Crow and Joe Neguse pursue a lawsuit alleging the administration of President Trump unlawfully blocked earlier congressional visits to detention sites and continues to hinder oversight. Lawmakers say they left without basic data they requested, including the share of detainees with criminal convictions and clarity on reports of detentions in Chaffee County.
Pettersen and colleagues argued that the public deserves transparency about who is being held and why. They said ICE staff declined to provide a breakdown of criminal versus noncriminal detainees, raising concerns that noncriminal and lawfully present immigrants make up a larger share of the population than ICE has acknowledged. ICE has not answered those specific claims or the reports tied to Chaffee County; its Denver spokesperson, Steve Kotecki, did not respond to recent requests for comment.
Oversight clash and new restrictions
Lawmakers described new access rules at the Aurora ICE detention facility that they view as barriers to oversight. ICE now requires members of Congress to give seven days’ notice before visits and to secure privacy releases before speaking with detainees—paperwork that Rep. Diana DeGette has characterized as obstructive.
During the August tour, staff referenced an internal color-coding system used at intake to mark perceived security levels. But when lawmakers asked for the percentage of detainees with criminal backgrounds, they were told the information was not available during the visit.
Those limits have taken on added weight because the Crow and Neguse lawsuit asserts prior attempts to visit were blocked during the administration of President Trump. The lawmakers argue such patterns undercut Congress’s constitutional role to oversee federal agencies, especially as ICE’s budget and footprint grow.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the dispute has galvanized Colorado’s delegation, with Rep. Brittany Pettersen pushing for regular, unscripted access to detainees and complete data on custody decisions.
“The public deserves transparency about who is being held and why,” lawmakers said, stressing that oversight delays can hide urgent problems.
Advocates note a long record of complaints at Aurora, including medical neglect and inhumane conditions. National attention returned after the 2024 death of Melvin Ariel Calero Mendoza in custody. The facility is operated by the private prison company GEO Group under contract with ICE—an arrangement rights groups say weakens accountability and encourages bed growth for profit.
Expansion plans and community impact
Planning documents revealed through ACLU Freedom of Information Act litigation show ICE aims to open up to three new centers—in Walsenburg, Hudson, and Ignacio—by the end of 2025. Key figures and funding include:
- Statewide capacity would rise by 2,560 beds
- Aurora’s capacity would expand from 1,360 to 1,530 beds
- The expansion is supported by a $45 billion congressional appropriation passed in July 2025
If contracts and local approvals proceed on schedule, Colorado could have the sixth-largest number of immigration detention beds in the country by 2026, with totals topping 4,000 beds.
Rights groups, including the ACLU of Colorado and the national ACLU, condemn the plan. They warn it will expose more people to a system already tied to medical lapses and due process concerns, and that private contractors—GEO Group and CoreCivic among them—stand to benefit as reports of rights violations continue.
Concerns about detainee composition and local effects
Lawmakers and advocates say escalating capacity almost always increases detentions of noncriminal immigrants, including people who are lawfully present. They reported a sharp rise in detentions of immigrants with no criminal history.
Rep. Pettersen said the absence of trustworthy data makes it impossible for the public to judge whether enforcement is focused on real threats or simply meeting bed quotas. ICE has not responded to the delegation’s request for a clear, published breakdown of detainee categories in Colorado.
While the immediate focus is Aurora, concerns stretch beyond city lines. Pettersen and other Democrats say constituents across the state, including Chaffee County, have described detentions of people with lawful status. These cases, they argue, point to a system that too often errs on the side of custody rather than community supervision or release.
Without clarity from ICE, families and employers are left guessing when a loved one or worker will return.
Access, procedures, and where to get help
Families seeking basic information face a maze of procedures and policies. Privacy rules limit what staff can share, and the new congressional visit requirements can slow urgent oversight.
For official contact information on detention status or facility operations, the public can reach the ICE Denver Field Office through the agency’s website at https://www.ice.gov/field-office/denver.
Advocates also urge affected individuals to:
- Document medical needs and conditions
- Request legal counsel as early as possible
- Keep records of interactions with enforcement and facility staff
Legal landscape and potential consequences
Rights groups point to ongoing litigation beyond the Crow and Neguse case, including suits over the detention of legal observers and limits on public access to immigration court proceedings. They argue these practices collectively reduce transparency at a moment the system is set to expand.
A ruling in the Crow and Neguse lawsuit could have wide implications:
- If the court rules against ICE:
- Lawmakers nationwide might gain broader, less restricted access to detention facilities.
- Policies like the seven-day notice and blanket privacy releases could be curtailed.
- If the court rules for ICE:
- Those restrictions could be cemented, making congressional oversight depend on advance planning and agency discretion.
No court decisions had been reported as of mid-August.
Community preparedness and practical impacts
Community groups are preparing for the practical effects of more beds. Expected consequences include:
- Higher demand for pro bono legal help
- Increased bond fundraising efforts
- Expanded need for medical and mental health services for detainees
- Local sheriffs and county governments weighing the strain on emergency services
- Potential for protests in host communities
- Business owners concerned about workforce disruptions if noncriminal employees are detained and routed far from home
Rights groups warn that private contractors will financially benefit even as reports of rights violations continue, creating incentives that may run counter to community welfare.
What lawmakers want now
The stakes in the lawsuit filed by Crow and Neguse extend beyond a single tour of Aurora. Rep. Brittany Pettersen says the priority is simple: data, access, and answers.
She and her colleagues want ICE to:
- Publish the share of detainees with criminal histories
- State whether any lawfully present immigrants are in custody in Colorado—including in Chaffee County
- Provide a timeline for Aurora’s bed expansion
Without that information, Pettersen warns, Colorado risks entering a larger detention system with fewer checks, higher costs, and mounting fear among immigrant families who have lived in the state for years.
This Article in a Nutshell
Colorado Democrats, led by Rep. Brittany Pettersen, pressed ICE after an August 12, 2025 Aurora visit. Lawmakers demanded data on criminal histories, challenged seven-day notice rules, and warned that planned expansion—2,560 new beds—risks detaining more lawfully present immigrants without adequate oversight or accountability.
