Polis sued over ICE data handoff involving migrant child sponsors
In the same week that activists sounded the alarm over a recent uptick in ICE arrests at Denver's federal immigration court, a senior state official sued Gov. Jared Polis, accusing the Democrat of aiding the Trump administration's immigration crackdown.
The big picture: The whistleblower lawsuit — filed Wednesday by Scott Moss, one of the governor's top labor officials — alleges that Polis ordered state employees to hand over personal information on residents sponsoring unaccompanied migrant children, despite laws the governor signed explicitly prohibiting such cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
According to the lawsuit, Polis' contested directive ordered staff to comply with a Department of Homeland Security subpoena or risk termination.
Why it matters: The governor now stands further at odds not only with the legislature and local leaders who have long resisted federal immigration enforcement, but with his own record.
Just weeks ago, Polis increased protections for immigrants. Now he is accused of undercutting them.
Catch up quick: On April 24, Homeland Security Investigations subpoenaed the state of Colorado for wage data, leave filings, home addresses and more on 35 sponsors of unaccompanied minors.
Polis' office initially resisted. Weeks later, however, the governor allegedly reversed course and ordered compliance, despite a 2025 law barring such disclosures without a court order.
What they're saying:"Colorado is not a sanctuary state," Polis spokesperson Eric Maruyama told Axios Denver in a statement. "Helping our federal law enforcement partners locate and, if necessary, rescue children being abused and trafficked is not only in line with the law but also a moral imperative."
Polis' office told The Lever, which first reported the lawsuit, the subpoena falls under a narrow legal exception for criminal investigations, and the law allows cooperation in such cases.
Flashback: In January, Polis told reporters that Colorado's role was to assist with federal criminal investigations, not act as an "extension of the (U.S.) government" on immigration enforcement.
The other side: In a statement to Axios Denver, Moss' attorney Laura Wolf countered claims made by the governor's office.
"ICE never claimed nor showed evidence of crimes against children," Wolf said.
"ICE admits it wants the state's help finding children" it already apprehended "to make sure they're 'cared for' and not 'exploited,'" but that "does not turn civil immigration proceedings into criminal investigations," she said.
Zoom out: The alleged cooperation comes as ICE has ramped up arrests in Denver's immigration courthouse. There were at least eight in the past week, including a toddler and a 6-year-old, Jennifer Piper of the American Friends Service Committee told reporters Thursday.
Piper and several immigrant advocates said ICE agents have been waiting in hallways, often in plain clothes, to apprehend people attending court.
"What we are seeing here I have not seen in the 20 years that I have been a part of the immigrant rights movement," Piper said.
What's next: Moss is seeking an emergency injunction to block the data release, while advocates are urging the state to strengthen its immigrant safeguards.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kash Patel Sends Ominous Threat in Response to L.A. Protests
The FBI says it will act on its own to squash the Los Angeles anti-ICE protests. FBI Director Kash Patel issued an ominous threat to the city and its residents late Sunday night, claiming that his agency would intervene in the multiday anti-Trump display without explicit direction. 'Just so we are clear, this FBI needs no one's permission to enforce the constitution,' Patel posted on X. 'My responsibility is to the American people, not political punch lines. LA is under siege by marauding criminals, and we will restore law and order. I'm not asking you, I'm telling you.' In a move that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem should agree with, California announced it would sue the federal government Monday, arguing that the Trump administration's order to send hundreds of National Guard troops toward Los Angeles, without coordination with the state's governor, was an unconstitutional breach of power. Hours earlier, FBI Public Affairs Assistant Director Ben Williamson shared that Patel had gotten off a call with 'senior leadership' addressing what they referred to as 'riots' in L.A., specifying that Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino had 'offered all necessary resources from FBI HQ' to address the situation. Williamson said the pair 'reiterated the position that any perpetrator who attacks or interferes with law enforcement will be aggressively pursued and brought to justice.' Bongino made it plain that one of the agency's primary targets would be individuals suspected of assaulting officers, writing on X that he and Patel had notified all FBI teams to pursue suspected individuals 'long after order is firmly established.' 'We will not forget. Even after you try to,' Bongino posted. But Republicans have so far not been very successful at pinpointing wrongdoing in Los Angeles. Instead, some viral videos circulating in conservative circles of protest-related violence in the city are actually not from the weekend at all, but were instead taken in 2020 during the Black Lives Matter protests.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump Could Use The Insurrection Act To Deploy Troops In LA
As protests continue to flare in Los Angeles over the Trump administration carrying out immigration raids and deploying National Guard troops to the area, President Donald Trump has floated the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act over objections from California's governor and the mayor of LA. Invoking the Insurrection Act, which generally gives the president the authority to quell rebellion or unrest by deploying the military, would be an escalation of the administration's actions so far in California. On Saturday, Trump deployed at least 300 National Guard troops to downtown Los Angeles after thousands of protesters took to the streets. They largely concentrated themselves in the city's garment district, where federal agents had started conducting raids for undocumented workers on Friday. According to the Department of Homeland Security, rioters assaulted multiple ICE officers, 'slashed tires, defaced buildings and taxpayer funded property,' the agency said in a statement on Saturday. (The agency also singled out several Democratic lawmakers, accusing them of 'villainizing and demonizing' ICE agents.) Local news station KTLA reported Monday that at least five LAPD officers have been injured, requiring medical care. Six other officers experienced minor injuries that did require hospitalization. Many protesters were not violent nor particularly destructive, but some individuals lobbed rocks and fireworks at police, or set driverless cars on fire. Los Angeles police made roughly 150 arrests on Sunday, according to The New York Times. Law enforcement used flash-bangs and rubber bullets against protesters. During a live broadcast on Sunday, police hit a journalist in the leg with a rubber bullet. Trump signed a proclamation late Saturday that mobilized the Guard to respond to protests against the raids, claiming the demonstrations interfered with the 'faithful execution of federal immigration laws.' As tensions escalated on Sunday, the Pentagon said it was prepared to send in at least 500 active U.S. Marines to Los Angeles. Trump's proclamation is not an invocation of the Insurrection Act but instead relies on Title 10, or 10 USC 12406, a federal code that allows him to wield his authority as president to federalize the National Guard but only under very limited circumstances. Those circumstances include: an actual foreign invasion or the threat of a foreign invasion, an actual or threatened rebellion against 'the authority of the government of the United States,' or when the president is unable to executive the nation's laws with 'regular forces.' Before boarding Air Force One on Sunday, Trump was asked by reporters whether he intended to invoke the Insurrection Act outright. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' he said, adding that he wouldn't let protesters 'get away with it.' 'We're not going to let them get away with it. We're going to have troops everywhere, we're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart,' Trump said. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have objected to the White House's use of the National Guard, and Newsom has said he intends to sue the administration. Newsom called the move by Trump to federalize California's National Guard 'purposefully inflammatory.' Typically, it is a state's governor who has control over that state's Guard, not the federal government. And notably, within Trump's proclamation is language that appears to clarify this. Under Title 10, the president is allowed to call the Guard into federal service in any state but 'orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States.' The Insurrection Act of 1807 — which is a bit of a misnomer since it is actually a combination of several statutes enacted by Congress from 1792 to 1871 — is a federal law that gives the president the power to deploy the military or National Guard to put down domestic rebellions, uprisings or other fits of civil unrest. The act uses Congress' constitutional authority to 'provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.' When the Insurrection Act is invoked, it suspends the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the military from getting involved in local or state law enforcement. Invoking the law is rare; it has occurred just 30 times in history. The last time was in 1992 as riots gripped Los Angeles following the acquittal of police officers accused of viciously beating Rodney King and California's governor called on then-President George H.W. Bush for help. Trump floated the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act in 2020 after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis sparked a wave of nationwide protests, most of which were peaceful. Martial law and the Insurrection Act are not one and the same. The Insurrection Act is invoked, typically, to have the military assist civilian law enforcement. Martial law refers to when the military becomes enforcers of local and state laws. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the president can unilaterally declare martial law or whether he would need Congress to approve the declaration. A president can use the Insurrection Act in a number of ways. For example, its provisions state that troops can be deployed under the act regardless of whether a state asks for them to be sent there. And the law cites various reasons presidents may send them. Troops can be deployed to quell violent unrest or to simply enforce federal law in a given locality. (The latest president to invoke the Insurrection Act against a state's will was Lyndon Johnson when he federalized the Alabama National Guard to protect civil rights protesters that marched from Selma to Montgomery.) The president does not need congressional approval to invoke the Insurrection Act, though he is required to at least issue a proclamation first that demands anyone causing unrest leave that area before troops are sent in. Many provisions built into the Insurrection Act are vague. One statute gives the president the right to suppress rebellion, domestic violence or some 'unlawful combination or conspiracy' in any state impeding U.S. law. Conspiracy is not defined in this Insurrection Act statute, meaning, as the Brennan Center for Justice notes, this provision under the Insurrection Act umbrella could be interpreted to mean that the president can use military force against any two people he thinks are conspiring to break the law. Trump Sets National Guard On Los Angeles As Protesters Counter Immigration Raids: Live Updates California Governor Plans To File Lawsuit Against Trump Over National Guard Deployment To Protests 'Arrest Me, Let's Go': Newsom Punches Back At Trump Border Czar Kamala Harris Torches Trump Over 'Cruel, Calculated' Move Targeting Los Angeles Trump Deploys National Guard As Los Angeles Protests Against Immigration Agents Continue
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Border Czar Responds to Gavin Newsom's Arrest Taunt on ‘Morning Joe': ‘I'm Not Biting'
Trump border czar Tom Homan appeared Monday on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' to justify ICE's immigration raids in Los Angeles and say he's 'not biting' on California Governor Gavin Newsom's taunt to arrest him. Homan began by defending ICE's controversial raids Friday at an L.A. Home Depot and in the city's fashion district. 'It wasn't an immigration raid. It was to service three criminal warrants at locations based on a large criminal conspiracy that ICE is investigating,' Homan said. 'This was a criminal investigation that they all responded to in the beginning. That's how it all started.' 'We took a lot of bad people off the street the last couple of days,' Homan continued. 'What ICE did the last couple of days is make Los Angeles safer by taking public safety threats off the street.' Watch the full 'Morning Joe' interview in the video below. Many would likely disagree with Homan's assessment, given that the protests between the city's residents and law enforcement officials over the weekend prompted President Trump to send in the National Guard. Around 300 troops arrived in the city Sunday. This, notably, marked the first time since the 1960s that a U.S. president had sent the National Guard to a state without first receiving a request from a governor. 'I support President Trump's decision,' Homan said of the National Guard's arrival in Los Angeles. 'They're there to protect property and life.' The border czar added, 'If [California officials] fail to control that city and we're there, we're going to do everything we can to protect our buildings, protect our officers. So calling up the National Guard I think is the right thing to do.' On Sunday, Newsom released a letter demanding that Trump's order be rescinded and that the National Guard be sent back. The California official accused Trump of creating further instability and pushing America one step closer to becoming an authoritarian nation. He also responded to comments from an interview with Homan in which the border czar said that anyone, including officials like Mayor Karen Bass and Newsom, would be arrested if they contributed to the impediment of ICE's raids. 'Come after me. Arrest me. Let's just get it over with, tough guy,' Newsom said in a Sunday interview. When asked on 'Morning Joe' about Newsom's taunt, Homan replied, 'I'm not biting on that.' The Trump official claimed that he had been misrepresented during his initial interview and that his words had been taken out of context. 'Here's what I said: They have a right to protest. They have the First Amendment rights, but they can't cross that line. They can't cross that line [into] impediment. They can't cross that line of putting their hands on officers,' Homan explained. 'I was clear [that Bass and Newsom] haven't crossed the line. But they're not above the law, either.' 'I never threatened to arrest Governor Newsom,' Homan concluded. The post Trump Border Czar Responds to Gavin Newsom's Arrest Taunt on 'Morning Joe': 'I'm Not Biting' | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
