The habeas petition cites Cunningham v. Neagle for the principle that an individual acting pursuant to federal law cannot be guilty of a state crime for those acts and explains that supremacy immunity extends to any person acting under a federal duty.
In Peters’ case that duty arises from statute and DOJ guidance.
Colorado barred her from presenting that duty and then imprisoned her for speaking about what her experts found.
If President Trump pardons her for actions taken to comply with federal election record retention law, Colorado must decide whether to accept the pardon or claim that its conviction overrides the federal interest in protecting election records.
TLDR from a good article on the topic:
The habeas petition cites Cunningham v. Neagle for the principle that an individual acting pursuant to federal law cannot be guilty of a state crime for those acts and explains that supremacy immunity extends to any person acting under a federal duty.
In Peters’ case that duty arises from statute and DOJ guidance.
Colorado barred her from presenting that duty and then imprisoned her for speaking about what her experts found.
If President Trump pardons her for actions taken to comply with federal election record retention law, Colorado must decide whether to accept the pardon or claim that its conviction overrides the federal interest in protecting election records.
https://rockymountainvoice.com/2025/11/28/colorados-clash-with-federal-law-why-tina-peters-case-poses-a-supreme-court-question/
very helpful, so thank you and this take seems promising