Colorado Defies the US Constitution under the Guise of “State Law”,

Disregarding the Supremacy Clause!

The Mesa County Incident: A Symptom of State Overreach

In a brazen display of state overreach, Colorado's government has once again positioned itself as a rogue actor in the American federal system. Consider the recent case in Mesa County, where Sheriff Deputy Alexander Swank pulled over Caroline Diaz Gonzalvez, a Brazilian student attending college in Utah. The stop resulted in a mere warning for a minor traffic infraction. However, Deputy Swank shared her information on a Facebook group frequented by local law enforcement officers and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. This act of voluntary cooperation with federal authorities led to charges filed against him by Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser for violating Senate Bill 25-276, a state law that prohibits sharing personal information with federal immigration enforcers. This incident exemplifies how Colorado's left-leaning legislature and Governor Jared Polis prioritize ideological agendas over constitutional fidelity, trampling on federal supremacy and individual rights in the process.

The Supremacy Clause: The Bedrock of Federal Authority

The Supremacy Clause, enshrined in Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, declares that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties are the "supreme Law of the Land," binding on state judges notwithstanding contrary state laws. This foundational principle ensures that states cannot undermine national authority. As James Madison articulated in Federalist No. 44, without this clause, the Union would dissolve into chaos, with states enacting conflicting measures that erode federal power. Madison warned that absent supremacy, "the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society everywhere subordinate to the authority of the parts." Similarly, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 33 emphasized that supremacy is inherent in any law, compelling obedience and preempting state interference. Hamilton dismissed fears of federal overreach, arguing that the clause merely affirms the natural superiority of national law over local edicts.

Historical Precedents Reinforcing Supremacy

Historical precedents reinforce this. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed that states cannot tax or impede federal institutions, declaring, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy," and upholding federal supremacy. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) extended this, invalidating a New York steamboat monopoly that conflicted with federal commerce regulation. In the immigration context, Hines v. Davidowitz (1941) struck down a Pennsylvania alien registration law as preempted by federal statutes, noting that immigration is a field where uniformity is essential. More recently, Arizona v. United States (2012) invalidated portions of Arizona's SB 1070 for encroaching on federal immigration enforcement, reaffirming that states cannot enact laws that hinder federal objectives.

Senate Bill 25-276: Obstructing Federal Immigration Enforcement

Senate Bill 25-276, signed into law in 2025, exemplifies Colorado's defiance. The bill prohibits local officials from sharing immigration-related information with federal agencies like ICE, delays releases from custody for immigration purposes, and restricts cooperation in enforcement operations. Proponents claim it protects civil rights, but it directly obstructs federal immigration law under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which empowers federal agents to enforce borders and deport unauthorized individuals. By criminalizing voluntary cooperation, as in Deputy Swank's case, Colorado commandeers its own officials against federal efforts, inverting the anti-commandeering doctrine from Printz v. United States (1997), which protects states from being forced to enforce federal law but does not authorize states to prohibit assistance. This creates a patchwork of non-cooperation that undermines national security and border integrity, conflicting with the Supremacy Clause.

Critics might cite sanctuary policies as permissible under the Tenth Amendment, but precedents show limits. In United States v. California (2018), a federal court upheld parts of California's sanctuary law but struck down provisions that impeded federal enforcement too severely. Colorado's SB 25-276 goes further by punishing officials like Swank for mere information sharing, which is not compelled but voluntary. This echoes the lawsuit filed by Douglas County in 2024, arguing that Colorado's sanctuary laws violate the Constitution by prioritizing illegal immigrants over citizen safety and federal authority. The state's actions disregard Madison's vision in Federalist No. 45, where he assured that federal powers are few and defined, while state powers are numerous and indefinite, but only when not preempted.

A Decade-Plus of Disregard: Erosion of Rights and Supremacy

This is not an isolated incident. Over the past 12 years, since 2013, Colorado's legislature has systematically decimated individual rights and flouted federal supremacy, often under the banner of "progressive reform".

Gun Control Measures Infringing on the Second Amendment

Begin with gun control. In 2013, following the Aurora theater shooting, the state enacted House Bill 13-1224, banning magazines over 15 rounds, and House Bill 13-1229, mandating universal background checks. These laws infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, as affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which struck down similar restrictions. Colorado's measures disregard this precedent, imposing burdens on law-abiding citizens while criminals ignore them. A federal lawsuit in 2013 challenged the magazine ban as unconstitutional, yet the state persisted, eroding self-defense rights.

Marijuana Legalization Defying Federal Drug Laws

The disregard intensified with marijuana legalization via Amendment 64 in 2012, effective 2013. While popular, it directly defies the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug. Colorado's regime creates a state-sanctioned industry that conflicts with federal law, as noted in a 2015 lawsuit by sheriffs from Colorado, Nebraska, and Oklahoma invoking the Supremacy Clause to invalidate it. Though the suit failed due to standing issues, the principle holds: states cannot nullify federal prohibitions. Hamilton in Federalist No. 33 would decry this as states assuming "an option of abiding by their constitutional obligations or not," leading to anarchy. This defiance has spilled over, encouraging other states to ignore federal drug laws and weakening national uniformity.

Expanding Sanctuary Policies Shielding Undocumented Individuals

Immigration policies provide another egregious example. In 2019, House Bill 19-1124 prohibited probation officers from sharing information with ICE and limited cooperation, laying the groundwork for SB 25-276. These laws transform Colorado into a sanctuary state, shielding undocumented individuals from deportation and prioritizing their "rights" over federal mandates. This conflicts with the INA and precedents like Arizona v. United States, where the Court emphasized federal exclusivity in immigration. By 2024, localities like Douglas County sued, claiming these policies endanger public safety and violate supremacy. Governor Polis's administration has doubled down, even as federal lawsuits mount, including a 2025 Department of Justice challenge to SB 25-276 for obstructing enforcement.

Pandemic Restrictions Violating Freedoms

Individual rights have fared no better. During the COVID-19 pandemic, from 2020 to 2022, Polis issued executive orders mandating masks, lockdowns, and business closures, violating freedoms of assembly, religion, and commerce. These edicts echoed those struck down in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), where the Supreme Court invalidated similar restrictions as infringing on First Amendment rights. Colorado's measures disregarded this, imposing fines and shutdowns on churches and gyms, decimating livelihoods without due process. In 2021, the state pushed vaccine mandates for state employees, further eroding bodily autonomy and privacy rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Suppressing Labor and Property Rights

Labor rights have also suffered. A 1943 law requiring a "second election" for union certification, rooted in anti-worker sentiments, remained in force until attempts to repeal it in 2025. This suppressed organizing, violating the National Labor Relations Act's federal framework. Meanwhile, 2023's Proposition HH attempted to alter property tax assessments, potentially violating the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) in the state constitution, which safeguards against unchecked taxation. Though voter-rejected, it highlighted legislative contempt for fiscal restraints.

Environmental regulations have trampled property rights. The 2019 Senate Bill 19-181 overhauled oil and gas permitting, granting local governments veto power over drilling, conflicting with federal energy policies under the Energy Policy Act. This led to lawsuits claiming preemption, as it hinders national energy independence. Farmers and landowners saw their rights diminished, unable to develop resources without bureaucratic hurdles.

Partisan Overreach in Elections and Privacy

In 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot under the Fourteenth Amendment's Insurrection Clause was a stark overreach, disregarding federal electoral processes. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed it in Trump v. Anderson (2024), affirming that states cannot unilaterally bar candidates from national office, reinforcing supremacy. This episode exposed Colorado's willingness to manipulate constitutional provisions for partisan gain, echoing Anti-Federalist fears of state tyranny that the Supremacy Clause was designed to prevent.

Privacy and data rights have been another battleground. The 2021 Colorado Privacy Act imposed stringent requirements on businesses, but 2024 amendments expanded "sensitive data" to include biometrics, potentially conflicting with federal laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). These overreaches burden interstate commerce, violating the dormant Commerce Clause as in Pike v. Bruce Church (1970).

Even in 2025, bills like House Bill 25-1239 updated anti-discrimination laws, but critics argue they infringe on free speech by compelling businesses to accommodate certain groups, reminiscent of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), where the Supreme Court rebuked the state for hostility toward religious beliefs.

The Tipping Point and Path Forward

This pattern over 12 years reveals a legislature that views itself as unbound by federal limits or individual liberties. From gun restrictions eroding self-defense to sanctuary laws shielding criminals from deportation, Colorado has prioritized ideology over the Constitution. Madison in Federalist No. 44 cautioned against such fragmentation, stating that supremacy ensures "the authority of the Union" over "partial and discordant" state actions.

The Swank case is the tipping point. By charging a deputy for aiding federal enforcement, Colorado not only defies supremacy but endangers communities. Information sharing is crucial for identifying threats, yet SB 25-276 criminalizes it, conflicting with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which prohibits restrictions on communicating immigration status to federal authorities. Though sanctuary advocates claim compliance, punishments like those against Swank cross into obstruction, as argued in ongoing federal suits.

To restore balance, federal intervention is needed. Congress should enact clarifying legislation affirming voluntary cooperation, and courts must strike down these laws under precedents like Hines. Citizens must demand accountability, recalling officials who prioritize politics over the Constitution.

Colorado's actions threaten the Republic's fabric. As Hamilton warned, without supremacy, "the cohesion of the Union" dissolves. It is time to reaffirm that states serve the people under federal law, not rule as fiefdoms.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.