CT law limits federal ICE agents. Debate is over whether it can it be enforced or needs to change

Hartford Courant – Tuesday, September 29, 2026
By Christopher Keating

Concerned about the actions of ICE agents at a Meriden courthouse, top state leaders say they are willing to make adjustments to ensure that Connecticut immigrants are safe as federal enforcement continues.

A new law is scheduled to take effect Thursday that prohibits Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and other law enforcement officers from wearing masks, except in limited circumstances.

The leaders are concerned that masked ICE agents entered the Meriden courthouse last week and arrested a man as judicial marshals allowed the agents into the courthouse. In videos taken at the scene, protestors are shown at the entry into the courthouse as ICE enters.

Although the new law takes effect Thursday, a federal court case is currently pending as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has sued Connecticut in an attempt to block the law. Federal officials and Republican state legislators have cited the Supremacy Clause that says that federal law overrides state law and the state cannot tell federal agents what they can do.

House Speaker Matt Ritter of Hartford says state officials are watching both the court case and ICE actions closely.

“The scene in Meriden is exactly what we’re trying to avoid here in Connecticut,” Ritter told The Courant in an interview.

“If you look at the law that we passed, adherence to that law is going to avoid the type of situations that we’ve seen that put not only officers in harm’s way but also people they’re trying to apprehend. Storming courthouses or hospitals or schools is not going to make people safer, and I don’t think it’s a good outcome for law enforcement, either,” he said. “It puts our law enforcement in a tough spot. I think it puts the federal officers in a tough spot. We should not have people going into those types of places. They are very sensitive and have long been considered sensitive sites.”

As law enforcement officers try to avoid clashes with each other, some officials have questioned whether state or local police officers would ever attempt to arrest an ICE agent for wearing a mask. In addition, police need to work closely with prosecutors so that cases are not dismissed when they get to court.

If necessary, Ritter said that he would be open to calling a special legislative session later this year if needed to comply with a federal court ruling regarding the Connecticut law.

“If we need to do something, we will do it,” Ritter said. “If a judge comes out and tells us in November that something’s got to happen, then you can call yourselves in. We know how to do that.”

State attorney general William Tong, who is defending Connecticut in the federal lawsuit, said that ICE agents are not above the law.

“ICE’s deliberate provocation at the courthouse in Meriden resulted in serious injury and caused needless chaos for our court system,” Tong said Monday. “No one is above the law, including federal immigration officials. We are using every ounce of our authority to protect the people of Connecticut, including vigorously defending the state’s lawful and necessary measures to protect public safety against federal challenges.”

While Tong is defending the civil lawsuit, his office does not have criminal jurisdiction over issues such as the arrest of an ICE agent for wearing a mask. That would be handled by local prosecutors and the Chief State’s Attorney’s office, which has criminal jurisdiction in Connecticut.

Cathryn Vaulman, the chief spokeswoman for Gov. Ned Lamont, said the state passed the law because masked ICE agents have been involved in too many violent incidents.

“By designating protected spaces, we can keep these sensitive places safe for all residents, undocumented and citizen alike,” she said. “ICE doesn’t belong in doctors’ offices or in schools, and as we saw in Meriden, its presence in courthouses can endanger people seeking justice. Beginning October 1, ICE agents will be required to show a judicial warrant to enter these spaces.”

One of the groups raising questions is Hands Off Connecticut, which includes groups known as Danbury Unites For Immigrants, Bridgeport Rapid Response, Middleton Immigrants Rights Alliance, and New Haven Immigrants Coalition, among others.

“When Connecticut passed the Trust Act, Connecticut made a promise — local law enforcement agencies are not an extension of ICE,” the group said. “That promise is being broken. A federal government so disrespectful of state power erodes its own legitimacy, but so does the state that does not uphold its own laws in the face of federal aggression.”

The group continued, “When federal agents barged into the state courthouse in Meriden, they did not just abduct another community member, they fundamentally challenged the legitimacy of our state government. Marshals opened the doors wide for ICE while pushing the citizens out of their own courthouse. ICE went so far as to pepper spray bystanders and a marshal assaulted another, causing one to be taken from the court by ambulance to the ER. This is an unforgivable act of collaboration, for which we demand justice.”

Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, a New Haven Democrat, agreed with Ritter that he would be open to a special session in the coming months if that is necessary. Looney added that he believes the Connecticut law should be upheld by the federal court.

“First of all, I think that any law that is passed by the state of Connecticut is presumptively constitutional until a court rules otherwise,” Looney told The Courant in a telephone interview.

“The law we passed is constitutional. It is not something that should be struck down under the Supremacy Clause. … This is a matter of public safety, where the state has a significant, historically validated claim to be able to protect its own people. … The ICE officials are ignoring a presumptively valid state law.”

Looney added, “They’re taking the position that the state doesn’t have any authority to regulate the way they conduct their activities. But we were very careful in passing the law to make sure that we were not subjecting federal law enforcement to anything that we do not require of state law enforcement – masks, physical badges, and ID and all those things.”

Concerning masks, Looney said, “The agency operating ICE inherently understands that some of what they’re doing is shameful, and that’s why they don’t want to be identified. It’s an extraordinary thing for people engaged in law enforcement to think they have to remain anonymous. It means that they don’t have confidence in the morality of their own mission. FBI agents do not wear masks. ATF agents — they don’t wear masks, either. Federal marshals who protect courthouses — they don’t wear masks.”

But President Donald J. Trump and his administration have defended the agency and touted arrests by ICE on the Department of Homeland Security’s website.

“Every day, the NICE men and women of ICE are putting their lives on the line to make America safe again,” Lauren Bis, the acting assistant secretary for public affairs, said earlier this year. “They arrested murderers, pedophiles, arsonists, and sex criminals. Under President Trump and Secretary Mullin, criminal illegal aliens are not welcome in the U.S.”

The state’s judicial branch is still reviewing the Meriden incident. The person arrested was identified as Welington Leonel Almara-Diaz, officials said.

“Based on our review of videos and interviews conducted to date, we do not believe that our marshals impeded the work of federal officials,” a branch spokeswoman said. “As our review of the incident continues, we will be mindful of these allegations and will take action if necessary.”

But House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford said he fundamentally questions whether Connecticut can prevail in the federal lawsuit under the circumstances.

“I don’t believe that we have the ability to regulate the federal government,” Candelora said in an interview. “I do think the Supremacy Clause will come into play. … I care that people in Connecticut are made less safe by these laws.”

Saying that the updates of the Trust Act have now gone too far, Candelora said, “There is no communication allowed between federal authorities and local authorities, which I think is really misplaced. If local law enforcement arrests an immigrant who has committed crimes, and is subject to a detainer, they should have the ability to reach out to ICE and have that person taken into federal custody. That’s what the intent of the original Trust Act was meant to do — to take the criminals off the street, but leave the innocent bystanders alone.”

He added, “The way the law was in 2016 worked well, and we should return to it. That law in 2016 had Republican support, and the current law that was revised had no Republican support.”

Concerning a possible special session, Candelora responded, “I would ask would they be amenable to come into special session to lower the gas tax? Frankly, I think that’s what voters care about. If we’re going to go in for illegal immigrants, why don’t we go in to lower the gas tax? This issue is a dog whistle for them for the elections.”

ICE has come under close scrutiny from state lawmakers as they say ICE agents have used excessive force around the country under Trump.

In Connecticut, ICE agents detained more than 100 people recently in various cities, particularly Danbury. While ICE said “numerous” immigrants had criminal histories, local groups put the number at six or seven. U.S. Sen Richard Blumenthal on Monday highlighted the recent detainments of four young people, none of whom had criminal histories and all of whom had a “legal basis” for being in the U.S., he said.

Led by Lamont, who received a standing ovation from Democrats in February during his State of the State Address for criticizing ICE, Democrats passed a detailed law that allows citizens to sue federal immigration agents if they believe that their civil rights have been violated. In addition, Senate Bill 397 prevents all law enforcement officers, including from ICE, from wearing masks, except in limited situations.

Republicans responded that states have no authority over federal immigration policy or the actions of federal agents that include ICE, the FBI and others. As such, Republicans have predicted that Connecticut’s law will eventually be overturned in federal court. The U.S. Department of Justice already filed a lawsuit in May against Connecticut that is still pending.

“It should be upheld, and will be upheld,” Looney said, “if the courts are acting with integrity.”

Access this article at its original source.