CCLP testifies in support of constitutional rights in Colorado

CCLP testifies in support of constitutional rights in Colorado

by Annie Martínez | May 5, 2026

federal action, Legal Advocacy, Legislative Updates, Research and Policy Analysis, Testimony

On Monday, May 4, 2026, Annie Martínez provided testimony in strong support of Senate Bill 26-176, State Remedies for Constitutional Rights Violation. The bill would have allowed Coloradans to hold federal actors accountable in constitutional rights violations. Unfortunately, the bill was postponed indefinitely.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Annie Martínez, and I am an attorney with a doctorate in public policy and administration. I am here on behalf of CCLP an antipoverty organization, in strong support of SB26-176.

At its core, this bill is about a basic rule-of-law principle: constitutional rights must be enforceable. Because endowing people with a right that they don't have an ability to enforce isn't a right at all.

For more than 150 years, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has provided a remedy when state or local officials violate federal constitutional rights. But Section 1983 does not apply to federal officials. And the limited remedy that once existed for federal constitutional violations - known as a Bivens action - has been sharply narrowed by the US Supreme Court. Meaning a person whose constitutional rights are violated by a federal official may have no meaningful path to damages at all.

SB-176 responds to that gap by creating a state-law cause of action for these constitutional violations, reflecting a foundational principle of our constitutional structure: that government authority is legitimate only when exercised within constitutional limits. Federal power is supreme only when exercised pursuant to the Constitution.

I also want to the concern about whether this bill expands liability for Colorado state and local officials. It should not.

State and local officials are already subject to suit for federal constitutional violations under 1983, and those claims are already litigated today in state and federal court. SB26-176 applies universally to government actors not to create new exposure for state and local officials, but to avoid treating federal officials differently in a way that could raise constitutional concerns.

In practice, this bill primarily addresses the enforcement gap for federal officials. It mirrors the language and structure of 1983 and preserves the same immunity defenses that would apply in comparable 1983 cases. So, for state and local officials, this maintains the status quo.

When balancing these concerns, the legislature should weigh actual harm against speculative risk. For Coloradans whose constitutional rights are violated, the harm is immediate, personal, and often life-altering. By contrast, concerns about expanded liability and related fallout are potential risks that can be managed. They should not outweigh the need to protect Coloradans from unconstitutional government action. The concern for misuse of the system cannot be a bar to creating enforcement mechanisms for Coloradans.

At this moment, when public trust in institutions is fragile and constitutional protections are being tested, Colorado should be clear: constitutional rights must be enforceable.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge a yes vote.

Recent articles

Skills2Compete CO testifies in support of older workers

May 4, 2026

CCLP testifies on reducing administrative burden on the health care industry

Apr 27, 2026

CCLP public comment on housing assistance for mixed status families

Apr 22, 2026

Skills2Compete CO testifies against repealing career support services

Apr 17, 2026