Full Breakdown
Colorado Repeals Lawyer Loyalty Oath Amid Federal Gag-Order Rescissions
6/13/2026, 3:41:35 AM
Background & Context
In 2022 Colorado enacted SB 25-276, requiring attorneys to certify under penalty of perjury that they would not use “nonpublic” court information to aid Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The provision was part of a broader trend of government-imposed speech restrictions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) “no-deny” settlement rule and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) analogous gag order, both in place for roughly five decades.
Core Event: Repeal of the Oath and Agency Policy Changes
Last week Governor Jared Polis signed SB 26-1276, which expressly removes the certification requirement for private attorneys accessing Colorado’s e-filing system. The Colorado Judicial Department announced that registered users no longer need to take the oath. Two weeks later, the CFTC issued a June 8 Federal Register notice rescinding its “no-deny” rule, citing flexibility in settlements and reduced public-perception concerns. The SEC has similarly abandoned its rule, though it continues to defend its constitutionality before the Supreme Court.
Timeline of Key Developments
- Late March 2024 – Colorado’s e-filing system begins prompting lawyers to take the loyalty oath.
- April 2024 – House Judiciary Committee requests documents on the oath’s implementation.
- Early June 2024 – Governor Polis signs SB 26-1276, repealing the oath.
- June 8 2024 – CFTC publishes rescission notice for its gag-order policy.
- June 25 2024 – Supreme Court scheduled to consider a petition challenging the SEC’s former rule.
Data & Statistics
- The Supreme Court has a 0-3 record in the past decade on cases compelling professionals to support same-sex weddings, including a $1.5 million settlement.
- The SEC’s “no-deny” rule existed for over 50 years without the Commission reopening enforcement proceedings.
Official Statements & Responses
The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) argued that the timing of the agency actions suggests an effort to avoid Supreme Court review and stressed the need for judicial clarification. Solicitor General John Sauer contended that, with the SEC rule rescinded, the case is moot and lacks prospective importance. Governor Polis cited “legal risks” when vetoing a separate ICE-lawsuit bill but did not comment directly on the loyalty oath repeal. The CFTC stated that eliminating the rule “gives the Commission more flexibility in settling enforcement actions” and may “expedite the return of money to injured investors.”
Criticism & Opposition
FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) described the original oath as a “form of compelled speech” and praised the repeal as a resolution to a “First Amendment fight they weren’t going to win.” Judicial Watch signaled intent to sue Colorado if the repeal were not enacted. Critics noted that the state’s prior attempt to restrict attorney speech lacked a clear line between permissible and prohibited conduct.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Governor Polis’s press releases do not list SB 26-1276 by name, creating uncertainty about the administration’s public acknowledgment of the repeal. The Supreme Court’s pending petition raises a question of mootness, as the SEC continues to argue for the rule’s constitutionality despite its rescission.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The timing of these actions suggests the Administration may be trying to avoid Supreme Court review,” — New Civil Liberties Alliance
- “It is "absolutely essential" the high court strike down such gag orders, since the revised policies "may not bind future administrations, courts that have approved settlements, or even future Commissions in this administration," NCLA said.” — New Civil Liberties Alliance
- “Policies that can be made and withdrawn at an agency’s whim," without public comment, "fail to provide certainty.” — New Civil Liberties Alliance
- “The SEC’s self-serving request to keep that decision on the books – after having unilaterally attempted to insulate it from this Court’s review – is unjustified.” — New Civil Liberties Alliance
Why It Matters / Impact
The repeal removes a state-level barrier to attorney cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, while the federal rescissions signal a shift away from agency-imposed speech constraints. Together, these actions may reshape the legal landscape for professional speech, affect future agency rulemaking, and set precedents for judicial review of gag orders.
What’s Next
The Supreme Court’s June 25 hearing will determine whether the SEC’s former “no-deny” rule remains subject to judicial scrutiny. Additional challenges to Colorado’s prior oath may arise if opponents seek retroactive relief. Both federal and state actors are likely to monitor the outcomes for guidance on permissible speech restrictions.
