Colorado’s propensity for targeting free speech is legion. Now, it’s gaining national notoriety. 

Just last month in Chiles v. Salazar, a rare 8-1 Supreme Court majority dismantled Colorado’s law restricting youth therapy regarding gender identity — the state’s third admonition from the high court for speech overreach. 

That trend caught the attention of noted George Washington University law professor and Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley. 

“Colorado’s tourism slogan, ‘It’s Our Nature,’ has a menacing meaning for free speech advocates,” Turley lamented in a national column for Fox. “Colorado is now arguably the most anti-free speech state in the union, pushing an array of measures attacking those with opposing social and political views.” 

He’s right — and it goes far beyond a string of Supreme Court defeats. 

Turley emphasized a new requirement that lawyers certify — as a condition to use the state’s e-filing system — that they will not use personal information from the system to cooperate with, participate in or assist federal immigration enforcement. 

The requirement traces back to August, when attorneys trying to access Colorado’s court filing system were ambushed by a “Disclaimer User Agreement” pushing the state’s sanctuary policies for illegal immigrants. 

The pop-up demanded lawyers pledge “under penalty of perjury” not to help ICE access “personal identifying information” from the database, unless required by law or court order. 

Lawyers could accept or decline — but declining locked them out of the only way to file with state courts. Attorneys facing a deadline had no real choice. 

Attorney Suzanne Taheri, who served as Colorado’s deputy secretary of state from 2012 through 2018, faced this conundrum during the August trial run. 

“I had a filing and literally couldn’t do it until I accepted,” Taheri told me at the time. “I tried to decline, and it sent me back to the login.” 

The judicial department claims to derive this authority from Senate Bill 25-276. But the statute never mentions the word “perjury,” let alone even mentioning attorneys in the first place. 

The state’s overreach didn’t go unnoticed. District attorneys Michael Allen, now running for attorney general, and George Brauchler pushed back. 

“Perjury is about attesting to facts, not a pledge regarding future conduct,” Brauchler posted at the time. “Good luck proving perjury here. Did lawyers actually draft this?” 

That outcry appears to have prompted the pause — not the public uproar. After all, government attorneys, including DAs and their staffs, are conveniently exempt from the requirement. 

“In September 2025, the Judicial Department paused implementation of this requirement for additional review. That review is now complete,” the department announced. 

Unsurprisingly, the internal review upholds what they did seven months ago — even though the law still doesn’t provide for anything they’re forcing attorneys to accept. Apparently, “additional review” means waiting until the outrage fades — then quietly doing it anyway while exempting government lawyers. 

Shortly after the certification prompt returned on March 31, Colorado Springs attorney Ian Speir sounded the alarm on social media. His post quickly went viral. 

“I was surprised by it — so blatantly content- and viewpoint-based from a First Amendment perspective,” Speir told me. 

His bigger concern was the Hobson’s choice before him. 

“As a lawyer, I have ethical duties to my clients, and those override a number of other things,” Speir said. “I think in this instance my ethical duty to my client overrides a personal objection I may have to this particular certification requirement.” 

So, he accepted the terms. 

“This seems to be an unnecessary rule plainly designed for a purpose other than protecting confidential information,” Speir said. “It seems very clearly directed at co-opting private attorneys across the state and enlisting them in Colorado’s anti-federal sanctuary efforts.” 

Doubly so since most information accessible through the e-filing system is public record to begin with. 

The certification mandate applies to third parties that access the system, identifying “certain attorneys, LLPs, and, in certain case types, pro se litigants” who can access information unavailable to the public “online, in person, or through a records request.” 

Most of the relevant information on the e-filing system is public record anyway, yet there remain “vague provisions on critical points,” according to Turley, with “considerable ambiguity on the scope of the rule.” 

The bigger problem is the chilling effect on both speech and cooperation with federal law enforcement. This is clearly designed to intimidate lawyers and undermine federal immigration enforcement in service of Colorado’s sanctuary status. 

That amounts to “obstruction of justice” in violation of federal law, according to Scott Mechkowski, former ICE deputy field director for New York — who warned it is “inviting chaos, lawsuits and funding cuts from the DOJ.” Mechkowski is now with the National Center for Immigration Enforcement. 

Let’s be real: This isn’t about protecting confidential information. It’s about commandeering private attorneys in service of a radical sanctuary agenda. 

“In my view,” Turley wrote, “the law is facially unconstitutional and should be struck down.” If not, and the state fights another legal battle, Coloradans “will continue to subsidize this effort to defend laws compelling or censoring speech.” 

“For free speech advocates,” he closed, “Colorado has proven positively a godsend in its string of losses in seeking to gut the First Amendment.” 

Speir says he’s working with other attorneys to consider a possible lawsuit. 

Here’s hoping Colorado adds yet another notch to its losing streak. 

Jimmy Sengenberger is an investigative journalist, public speaker, and longtime local talk-radio host. Reach Jimmy online at Jimmysengenberger.com or on X (formerly Twitter) @SengCenter.