Colorado Governor Accused of Breaking His Own Law by Handing Private Data to ICE

A whistleblower lawsuit has landed on Governor Jared Polis’s desk, claiming he asked state officials to violate Colorado privacy laws by sharing confidential personal data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—despite being the one who signed those protections into law.

Timeline & Legal Background

• April 24, 2025: ICE issued a subpoena to Colorado’s Department of Labor demanding personal records—addresses, unemployment filings, phone numbers, email addresses—for 35 sponsors of unaccompanied immigrant minors.

• Colorado privacy laws (enacted in 2021 and updated on May 23, 2025) explicitly bar state agencies from sharing non-public personal information with federal immigration authorities in civil cases.

Whistleblower’s Claim

Scott Moss, director of the Division of Labor Standards and Statistics, filed the lawsuit stating Governor Polis “personally decided” to comply with the subpoena, instructing Moss and his team to hand over the data by early June.
Moss argues this violated clear legal protections and placed state employees in the unenviable position of choosing between breaking the law or risking their jobs.

Governor’s Office Responds

The Polis administration contends the request relates to a criminal investigation aimed at preventing child exploitation and trafficking—areas where privacy laws allow exceptions.
They have currently paused compliance until at least June 23, 2025, pending court review.

Growing Backlash

Opponents argue the subpoena appears entirely administrative—no criminal case is alleged.
Labor unions, civil rights groups, and the Colorado AFL-CIO have joined Moss’s suit, accusing the governor of betraying immigrant communities and public servants.
State lawmakers who helped craft the privacy laws have called the compliance direction a breach of trust.

What’s Next?

A court hearing is scheduled for June 23, 2025, after which the legal status of the subpoena—and Polis’s directive—will be decided.
This case raises critical questions about the balance between child safety and immigrant privacy, as well as the authority of the governor to expand legal exceptions in practice.