DOJ Fumbles Against Sanctuary States, Overlooked by Biden’s Absent Leadership

Late on Friday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reinstated its case against the state of Colorado, in an effort to quash what it deems to be the dangerous stance of sanctuary cities, favored by the Trump administration. This move came irrespective of an analogous case against Chicago and Illinois, which a federal judge had ruled against earlier that day. The judgment in the Illinois case had no influence on the DOJ’s decision to refile in Colorado, as the preparation for the submission was already underway.

The DOJ found it necessary to refile, owing primarily to the introduction of Senate Bill 276 (SB25-276). A new immigration law, this was ushered in by the state legislature and hastily put into effect, following the initial DOJ lawsuit filing on May 2. The revised complaint against Colorado exhibits a more intricate, forceful, and politically vested approach.

Unsurprisingly, SB25-276 software Colorado’s infamous sanctuary policies, escalating its embargoes on state and local employees who are cooperating with federal immigration authorities. This bill hinders the Executive Branch’s ability to enforce immigration law in Colorado. The new law represents the Democrats’ overextension of immigrants protections, especially those dwelling illegally in the country.

Parsed by a party-line vote in the democratically-majority state legislature signaling a lack of bipartisan agreement, SB25-276 builds on previous restrictions preventing state and local law enforcement and other employees from cooperating with and sharing data with federal immigration agents. Amendments integrated into SB25-276 serve to greatly restrain employees from obtaining or disseminating information to federal immigration enforcement authorities.

In a twist of irony, the refilled complaint also took to task Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, for his lawsuit against a Mesa County sheriff’s deputy which was filed on July 22. On June 5, Masa County Sheriff’s Deputy Alexander Zwinck violated state law by collaborating with immigration officials, leading to the arrest of a 19-year-old Utah college student in what was initially meant to be a routine traffic stop.

Seemingly targeted for sticking too close to a semitruck on I-70, the teenager was compliant, revealing her personal details, which Zwinck hastily fed into a Signal group chat with federal immigration officers. Despite the Utah woman having no criminal history and merely overstaying her visa, Zwinck tipped off the federal immigration officials about her location. Dias Goncalves, unfortunately, was abruptly taken into custody and spent a disturbing 15 days in the Aurora ICE detention center.

Dias’ wrongful detention was a direct violation of Colorado’s state laws, seeing as there was no criminal activity on her side. Zwinck’s cooperation with federal immigration, which spun out from mere traffic patrolling to immigration enforcement, resonated with other likeminded Republicans in Colorado.

Among them was Teller County Sheriff, and a contender for 2026 Republican gubernatorial candidacy, Jason Mikesell. In condemning Colorado’s Attorney General for suing a Deputy Sheriff for obeying federal laws, Mikesell was unsparing of the hypocrisy, characterizing it as a dismal moment for all Colorado residents.

He criticized Weiser’s apparent inversion of his mission to ‘advance respect for the law and the public interest.’ Arguing the suit flew in the face of the very principles the Colorado Attorney General purports to uphold, Mikesell seized this opportunity to demand his resignation.

As pertains to the DOJ’s lawsuit against Colorado, the state has been given until August 25 to offer a response to the revised complaint. The court has scheduled the first conference for October 16, though the longevity of the lawsuit remains uncertain.

The suit fell under the jurisdiction of Colorado District Judge Gordon P Gallagher, a questionable appointee of Joe Biden. On a parallel note, another judge appointed by Biden in Illinois, recently dismissed the DOJ’s sanctuary city litigation against Chicago and the state itself.

The Illinois judge’s rationale was that Illinois was practicing its right to enact sanctuary laws, as provided by the 10th Amendment. The Amendment asserts that any powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government or denied to states, remain with the states. Unfazed by this, the DOJ persists in its mission to abolish sanctuary policies, and filed a similar lawsuit against New York City on the Thursday before the Chicago ruling.