Trump’s Department of Justice sues Colorado and Denver over sanctuary laws allegedly protecting Venezuelan gangs while obstructing federal immigration enforcement.
At a Glance
- DOJ filed a lawsuit against Colorado and Denver for implementing “sanctuary laws” that allegedly violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause
- The lawsuit claims these policies allowed a Venezuelan gang to control an apartment complex in Aurora, a Denver suburb
- Colorado officials deny being a sanctuary state and insist they collaborate with law enforcement agencies
- This is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration, which has filed similar lawsuits against Rochester, NY and Chicago
Lawsuit Targets State and Local Officials for Immigration Obstruction
The Department of Justice has launched a significant legal challenge against Colorado and Denver, filing a lawsuit that accuses them of interfering with federal immigration enforcement through their “sanctuary laws.” The lawsuit specifically targets high-ranking officials including Colorado Governor Jared Polis, the state Legislature, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser. At the heart of the case is the claim that these policies directly violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which establishes federal law as the supreme law of the land when conflicts with state laws arise.
The legal action reflects the Trump administration’s aggressive approach toward localities that limit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These “sanctuary” jurisdictions typically restrict local law enforcement from sharing information with federal immigration authorities or honoring ICE detainer requests. This lawsuit is not isolated—the DOJ has previously targeted Rochester, New York, and Chicago with similar legal challenges, signaling a coordinated national strategy against sanctuary policies.
The lawsuit is part of a broader Trump administration effort to target sanctuary jurisdictions, with similar actions filed against Illinois, Chicago, and Rochester, New York. It builds on earlier legal challenges, such as Douglas County’s 2024 lawsuit against Colorado’s sanctuary…
— Greg (@coffeeontherox) May 3, 2025
Venezuelan Gang Control Allegations Fuel Federal Concerns
Perhaps the most provocative claim in the lawsuit involves the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA). According to DOJ allegations, Colorado’s sanctuary policies created conditions that allowed this gang to establish control over an apartment complex in Aurora, a Denver suburb. This assertion directly connects sanctuary policies with public safety threats, arguing that limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement creates dangerous blind spots that criminal organizations can exploit.
Local officials have pushed back against these characterizations, acknowledging that while problems exist at the apartment complex, claims about complete gang control are exaggerated. This dispute highlights the tension between federal portrayals of immigration enforcement as essential to public safety and local perspectives that often view the relationship between immigration status and crime as more nuanced and complex than federal authorities suggest.
Colorado Denies “Sanctuary State” Label
Governor Polis’s office has issued a direct rebuttal to the lawsuit’s characterization, flatly stating that “Colorado is not a sanctuary state.” His administration maintains that the state collaborates appropriately with law enforcement agencies at all levels. This defense highlights the fundamental disagreement about what constitutes proper cooperation with federal immigration authorities and whether states and localities have discretion to limit certain types of collaboration without violating federal supremacy.
Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have amplified pressure on Democratic-led cities and states to align with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement priorities. This congressional pressure adds a political dimension to what is already a contentious legal dispute, with elected officials on both sides using the issue to appeal to their respective political bases in an increasingly polarized debate about immigration enforcement.
Cities Call for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Mayors of several cities, including Denver’s Mike Johnston, have defended their jurisdictions as welcoming to immigrants while calling for comprehensive immigration reform. This position attempts to shift the conversation from enforcement tactics to the broader policy framework, suggesting that the current conflict stems from Congress’s failure to modernize immigration laws rather than from local resistance to valid federal authority. The call for reform represents an attempt to reframe the debate away from simple compliance questions.
As the lawsuit progresses through the legal system, it will likely serve as a significant test case for the limits of state and local authority in immigration matters. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for how immigration enforcement operates across jurisdictions where state and local priorities differ from federal ones. Regardless of the legal resolution, the case underscores the deep divisions in American society over immigration policy and enforcement priorities.
