Defense Attorney Josh Kolsrud Breaks Down the Legal Risks of Arizona Bill SB-1635

Interview Context on Fox 10 Talks

In his appearance, Kolsrud analyzed the proposed Arizona legislation known as SB1635, which would criminalize warning someone about nearby law enforcement or immigration activity. His commentary focused on constitutional concerns, legal standards, and the practical challenges of enforcing a speech-based criminal statute.

“... A First Amendment Minefield”

Why SB1635 Could Face Serious Constitutional Challenges

Kolsrud explained that the bill creates what he called “legal landmines” because it appears to punish speech alone without any required criminal conduct. Under the proposal, a person could face a misdemeanor simply for attempting to warn someone about police or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement presence — even if the warning never reaches its intended recipient. He emphasized that laws targeting speech trigger strict scrutiny, the highest constitutional standard, meaning courts must determine whether the government has a compelling interest and whether the law is narrowly tailored. While officer safety may qualify as compelling, he believes the bill fails the narrow-tailoring requirement due to vague definitions and overly broad scope.

Ambiguity, Overreach, and Real-World Consequences

A major concern Kolsrud highlighted is the bill’s ambiguity around what counts as a “warning.” He noted the language could theoretically criminalize anything from neighborhood alerts to whistle signals, potentially even affecting journalists reporting on enforcement activity. To illustrate the breadth, he referenced how historical figures like Paul Revere could have been prosecuted under similar wording. Because of these issues, he questioned whether the law could realistically survive judicial review, particularly if challenged before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Key Takeaways from Josh Kolsrud

• • SB1635 may violate the First Amendment because it criminalizes speech without requiring unlawful action.
  • Laws regulating speech must pass strict scrutiny, and Kolsrud believes this bill is not narrowly tailored.
  • The proposal’s vague language could unintentionally criminalize journalists, community alerts, or innocent communication.

• Even with legitimate law enforcement safety concerns, the bill could struggle to withstand constitutional challenges in court.