Images of masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents patrolling metropolitan streets have become synonymous with the mass deportation agenda currently underway, although since it was first conceived, the effort has depended on more than just federal resources — in part due to a lack of facilities to hold the thousands of immigrants they are arresting.
On Trump’s first day in office, he signed the Protecting the American People Against Invasion executive order, calling on the Department of Homeland Security to maximize the use of “287(g) agreements” with local police and sheriff’s departments. Since then, the number of agreements has ballooned from 135 to more than 1,400 nationwide.
Effectively deputizing designated local law enforcement officers as federal immigration agents and enabling local jails to hold ICE arrestees, the agreements are in place in 27 states. Some, including Florida, have passed laws requiring participation in the program, while others have banned it outright.
Colorado is one of the 27 states with agreements in place, although thanks to the work of state legislators and immigrant-rights advocates, the state finds itself in a unique position regarding restrictions on cooperation. Currently, there is only a single agency participating in the 287(g) program, the Teller County Sheriff’s Office (TCSO), and in a severely restricted form at that.
Laws Restricting Cooporation With ICE
Four main laws govern Colorado’s restrictions on how local law enforcement can collaborate with ICE, all passed in the last seven years.
“I could not be more proud because we have done the work in Colorado to ensure that we are crafting durable, lasting policy that forces ICE to actually do its own damn job and not to use local governments and state governments as force multipliers for their deportation machine,” said State Sen. Julie Gonzales (D-Denver) in an interview with the Colorado Times Recorder.
Gonzales, currently challenging Sen. Hickenlooper (D-CO) for his seat in the upcoming primary, has been a driving force and prime sponsor behind all of them.
_
The Protect Colorado Residents From Federal Government Overreach Act
Introduced as HB19-1124 and passed in May 2019, the act prohibits state and local law enforcement from detaining or arresting an individual solely based on a civil immigration detainer — a request from ICE to local law enforcement to hold an individual beyond when they are set to be released, and notably, not signed by a judge.
The act also bars probation officers from sharing an individual’s personal information with federal immigration authorities, and mandates that a detainee must be made aware of their rights if an officer coordinates an interview between them and immigration authorities.
The act was introduced following an El Paso County judge’s ruling that the El Paso County Sheriff’s Department’s practice of holding prisoners for days or months beyond their release date “solely on the ground that ICE suspects that they are subject to deportation for civil immigration violations,” violated provisions in the state’s constitution. The case was argued by the ACLU of Colorado, and the act’s passage codified the ruling into state law.
The Protect Colorado Residents From Federal Government Overreach Act also paved the way for the ACLU to bring a case challenging the Teller County Sheriff’s Office’s (TCSO) 287(g) agreement with ICE and the immigration enforcement authorities that it granted to officers.
_
The Protect Personal Identifying Information Kept By State Act
Passed two years later in June 2021, the act limits how state employees can share protected information about individuals with federal immigration authorities. Introduced as SB21-131, it prohibits any state agency employees from sharing non-public information about an individual with federal immigration enforcement, except as required by law. It also bars state agency employees from seeking out information about an individual’s immigration status, except to assess eligibility for government-funded programs, or as necessary to perform agency duties.
Similar to the 2019 act, it was introduced in response to advocacy work done by immigrant-rights activists, according to Gonzales.
“Following CORA requests filed by the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition that demonstrated that ICE was using our state databases to engage in fishing expeditions, we prohibited state agencies from sharing information with immigration enforcement authorities unless somebody showed up with an actual warrant,” said Gonzales
_
The Restrict Government Involvement In Immigration Detention Act
Introduced as HB23-1100 in January 2023, it is the most substantial act in terms of its impact on local law enforcement. It prohibits government entities, such as local jails, from entering into agreements to hold individuals for federal civil immigration purposes, one of the authorities granted by the 287(g) agreement, and mandates that existing agreements be terminated by January 2024.
Only one 287(g) agreement, with TCSO, was in place at the time the act was signed into law.
The act also prohibits the state and local governments from entering into contracts with private companies regarding immigrant detention facilities, such as GEO Group, which operates the Aurora ICE facility.
–
The Protect Civil Rights Immigration Status Act
Introduced last year as SB25-276, the act prohibits jails from delaying an individual’s release based on a civil immigration detainer, and extends limits introduced by The Protect Personal Identifying Information Kept By State Act on sharing identifiable information down to the county and municipal level.
The act was signed into law following the conclusion of the ACLU’s 2019 lawsuit against TCSO, a case that centered on the unlawful delays in release that SB25-276 sought to remedy.
Nash et al. v. Mikesell – Affirming the Statutes
Filed shortly after the passage of HB19-1124, the Colorado ACLU’s case against Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesel holds the distinction of being the first case in the country to find a sheriff in violation of state law for detaining immigrants pursuant to a 287(g) agreement, and set the legal groundwork for further limitations on cooperation with immigration authorities in the state.
On behalf of five Teller County residents, the ACLU argued that the TCSO’s practice of prolonging the detention of individuals, at ICE’s request, who were otherwise eligible for release, was prohibited under the recently passed legislation. Sheriff Mikesell’s lawyers argued that such actions were authorized by the TSCO’s 287(g) agreement, which the department had signed in January 2019.
According to Annie Kurtz, one of the ACLU lawyers who worked on the case, TCSO sought out the agreement with ICE following the ACLU’s victory in its class action lawsuit against the El Paso County Sheriff (EPCS) to avoid similar litigation regarding his office’s own practice of holding individuals beyond when they were set to be released. EPCS did not have a 287(g) agreement in place when the events at issue occurred, although the department had previously been party to one up until 2015.
“[Mikesell] testified at trial that our success in the El Paso litigation was part of what prompted him to enter this 287(g) agreement,” said Kurtz. “From our view, the agreement didn’t do anything to change the legality of that practice,” referring to the prolonged detentions.
The case against Mikesell was initially brought in the Teller County District Court in 2020, where a judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not have the standing to sue the sheriff. However, that ruling was reversed in a 2022 Colorado Court of Appeals decision, sending the case back to the district court for trial.
At trial, the district judge ruled in favor of Mikesell, which the plaintiffs again appealed, bringing the case back to the appeals court in 2023. The appeals court then ruled in favor of the ACLU and held that the language passed in The Protect Colorado Residents From Federal Government Overreach Act invalidated officers’ authority to detain individuals on the basis of civil immigration detainers granted by the 287(g) agreement.
In 2025, the case finally concluded. Both parties agreed to a joint stipulation that the TCSO would permanently cease unlawful detentions on ICE’s behalf, with Mikesell acknowledging and agreeing “that TCSO does not have the authority to arrest or detain individuals based on any ICE form.”
The stipulation did allow for TCSO’s 287(g) agreement to remain in place, although its contents have been substantially changed in accordance with the joint stipulation, no longer giving designated officers the authority to serve warrants and make arrests for immigration violations, or to detain and transport individuals arrested for immigration violations to ICE detention facilities.
Officers trained under the 287(g) agreement at TCSO are still permitted to interrogate any person they believe to be in the country illegally, as well as to collect evidence and prepare various charging and processing documents for ICE.
The Protect Civil Rights Immigration Status Act does include a stipulation that its restriction shall not prevent a state employee from assisting federal law enforcement with criminal investigations, which does leave the door open for a degree of continued cooperation.
“The agreement itself was not struck down, but what the sheriff characterized as the reason for the agreement — which was holding people for ICE — that practice was struck down,” said Kurtz when asked about the conclusion of the case. “I would hope that it sends a message [to other departments] that if the purpose of an agreement with ICE is to hold people in violation of Colorado law, that that’s not going to stand.”
Ongoing Work
TCSO continues to be the only department in Colorado with a 287(g) agreement, although immigrant-rights advocates and legislators are continuing work to expand protections for vulnerable communities and fight against local law enforcement working with ICE.
In February, the non-profit law firm Towards Justice sent a cease and desist letter to the Garfield County Sheriff’s Office, accusing the department of similar offenses to those at issue in both the TCSO and EPCS cases. The language passed in both The Protect Colorado Residents From Federal Government Overreach Act and The Protect Civil Rights Immigration Status Act is directly referenced in the letter, as well as the precedent set by the ACLU’s victories in both prior cases.
Earlier this month, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by the Trump administration that challenged a number of the state’s laws and the City of Denver’s policies regarding federal immigration enforcement, including HB19-1124, SB21-131, and SB25-276. The judge ruled that the Constitution cannot compel states to assist with immigration enforcement, and that to back the administration’s arguments “would run afoul of the Tenth Amendment.”
“I am so proud because I had a role in every single one of the policies that were named, both at the municipal level in Denver, the two ordinances, and the four bills named at the state level,” said Gonzales when asked about the lawsuit’s outcome. “In 2017 — the day that the Denver Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act was passed by the Denver City Council — that’s when I decided to file my candidacy for the state legislature.”
In the Capitol, Gonzales, along with several Democratic colleagues, has introduced another ICE-related bill for the 2026 legislative session. Currently under consideration in the House Judiciary Committee, SB26-005 would make officers who violate an individual’s constitutional rights while participating in immigration enforcement civilly liable for their actions.
