A sanctuary law passed by the legislature last year barring lawyers from disclosing information in court records to aid federal immigration enforcement was repealed discreetly this month when Gov. Jared Polis signed House Bill 26-1276 into law.

The requirement, as implemented by the Colorado Judicial Branch, had forced attorneys to pledge, “under penalty of perjury,” not to disclose such information to federal immigration authorities absent a court order. Lawyers had to agree to the pledge to access the state’s e-filing platform — which they rely on to upload court documents.

“I think in this instance my ethical duty to my client overrides a personal objection I may have to this particular certification requirement,” Colorado Springs attorney Ian Speir told Gazette columnist Jimmy Sengenberger in April.

The provision took effect in late August and was temporarily pulled “for review” in September.

In April, it was reinstated. Backlash turned national after Speir posted about it online, drawing attention from legal experts such as George Washington University law professor and Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley.

“In my view, the law is facially unconstitutional and should be struck down,” Turley wrote in a column for FoxNews.com, flagging the First Amendment problem of “compelling or censoring speech.”

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee joined in, writing a letter demanding information from Colorado’s court administrator and asserting the requirement unlawfully obstructed federal law enforcement.

“It also hijacks the private practice of law to fulfill the political goals of the state of Colorado and undermines attorneys’ ethical obligations, all to ensure that illegal and criminal aliens in Colorado can remain in the state indefinitely,” the letter said.

The national spotlight seemed to make an impact.

When HB-1276 was introduced in the state House this February, it said nothing about the certification requirement. But when it moved to the state Senate in May — after national controversy blew up over the mandate — the repeal provision was added to the bill.

“Lawmakers didn’t tuck this attorney-certification repeal into a sanctuary bill because they suddenly had a constitutional revelation. They did it because a legal challenge would have succeeded,” Sengenberger wrote recently.

State Sen. Julie Gonzales of Denver, a co-sponsor of last year’s House Bill 25-276 who’s now running for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, said in a Gazette news report the certification requirement was unintended.

Adams County Rep. Lorena Garcia, who co-sponsored both bills, said the original legislation was meant to boost immigrants’ data privacy protections.

“This year, Colorado Democrats passed HB26-1276 to establish some needed guardrails on federal detention centers,” Garcia told The Gazette. “We learned that immigration attorneys were having a difficult time getting information about their clients, and this year’s law excluded the e-filing system requirement to streamline and improve the process.”

Garcia’s candor is noteworthy because, by her own account, the repeal wasn’t about a fundamental principle.

Rather, she and Gonzales describe the certification requirement as an unintended consequence and a workflow problem. Apparently, the mandate fell because it inconvenienced attorneys on Democrats’ own side.

It never would have gotten this far but for Colorado’s ruling Democrats passing one sanctuary policy after another — burdens that HB-1276 deepens, ordering inspections and civil penalties on immigration detention centers.

Lawmakers scrapped one indefensible mandate while instituting others, all in service of the same sanctuary agenda.