A bill that would allow individuals who get injured during an immigration action to sue federal agents in state court won preliminary approval from the Colorado Senate on Monday.

The bill would permit a “cause of action” by such individuals to sue. It would also permit “legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief” if an agent “violates” the U.S. Constitution while participating in immigration enforcement action.

The proposal does not explicitly identify the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the U.S. Border Patrol, though it expressly reference enforcing federal immigration laws.

Sponsored by Democratic Sens. Mike Weissman of Aurora and Julie Gonzales of Denver, Senate Bill 5 carries a first-year cost of $125,604 — to be paid by a risk management cash fund. The fiscal analysis stated that, in future years, the state’s general fund could be tapped to cover some of those costs.

The analysis also said the department estimated risk management expenditures would increase by $3.3 million per year, beginning in 2026-27, based on 13 more cases per year brought against state employees who are presumed to have injured an individual while participating in federal immigration enforcement.

About 60% of that could be from the general fund, according to Sen. Lynda Zamora Wilson, R-Colorado Springs.

The Senate Appropriations Committee amended the bill to clarify the risk management fund is tied to a legal services fund within the Department of Personnel and Administration, and that the money would be appropriated to the Department of Law to pay for a half-time attorney.

Both sides noted immigration enforcement actions in Minnesota and the deaths of two U.S. citizens there, while raising familiar arguments for or against the crackdown on illegal immigration. Democrats criticized federal actions there, while Republicans defended them.

Gonzales claimed that federal immigration agents have been violating the rights of immigrants for years, and now, she added, immigration agents have killed American citizens and “telling us not to believe what we see with our own eyes.”

It goes both ways, countered Sen. Mark Baisley, R-Woodland Park. If an agitator injures an agent, the agitator could be liable, too, he said.

Republicans offered five amendments, none of which passed.

Sen. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs, offered an amendment that said an immigration agent is not liable if provoked by an agitator.

“This is only reasonable and fair,” he said.

Weissman said there should be no immunity if agents used unlimited force, adding that exercising First Amendment rights does not legally open a person up to being thrown to the ground, clubbed, shot or killed.

Zamora said one amendment the Republicans offered would put up guardrails against frivolous lawsuits, arguing the bill will increase costs to taxpayers and the judicial system and, without those guardrails, agents could face costly lawsuits for alleged constitutional violations for routine duties.

She later offered an amendment requiring the Department of Personnel to report on how much it would spend to defend the actions brought under the bill.

Gonzales, meanwhile, said the bill is not about protests but about violations of constitutional rights that occur during civil immigration enforcement.

Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, R-Brighton, said she is wary about law enforcers holding back out of fear of getting sued, instead of doing their jobs.

“How bad does it have to get before law enforcements says ‘enough is enough'” and they won’t work anywhere in this state? she said.

This bill would allow non-citizens to file frivolous lawsuits against law enforcement, according to Sen. Janice Rich, R-Grand Junction.

There were immigration tactics that took place in his district that didn’t match with his values, said Senate Minority Leader Cleave Simpson, R-Alamosa, but he isn’t sure those tactics rose to the level of a violation of constitutional rights.

This is a bill to allow people to file a lawsuit “because that’s how you enforce your rights in this country,” Weissman argued in response to a Republican amendment.

SB 5 heads to a final vote as soon as Tuesday.