The U.S. Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against Connecticut and its city of New Haven, arguing that their sanctuary policies interfere with federal enforcement of the nation's immigration laws.
The lawsuit names Connecticut, Gov. Ned Lamont and Attorney General William Tong, as well as New Haven and Mayor Justin Elicker as defendants. The complaint takes issue with the state's so-called Trust Act and other state and local policies that the DOJ argues are illegal under federal law.
What the Right Is Saying
The DOJ argues that Connecticut and New Haven policies are illegal under federal law and constitute intentional obstruction of immigration enforcement.
Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the DOJ's Civil Division said in a statement: 'For years, Connecticut communities have paid the price of these misguided sanctuary policies. This lawsuit seeks to end such open defiance of federal law.'
The complaint alleges that Connecticut and New Haven have made intentional efforts that obstruct federal law enforcement, put people at risk, and are preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The DOJ claims these policies have allowed dangerous criminals to be released into communities in the Nutmeg State.
What the Left Is Saying
Connecticut's top Democratic officials have defended the state's policies as constitutional and consistent with federal law.
Governor Lamont said in a statement that state laws do not prevent federal authorities from enforcing immigration law. 'They instead reflect a longstanding principle: the federal government cannot require states to use their personnel or resources to carry out federal enforcement responsibilities,' Lamont said. 'We will defend Connecticut's laws vigorously against the complaints outlined in the federal government's lawsuit.'
Attorney General William Tong called the lawsuit a waste of federal resources and said Connecticut would fight it aggressively. 'The sovereign people of Connecticut have exercised our right to pass state laws like the Trust Act that prioritize public safety and ensure that all people can trust and rely on law enforcement to keep us safe,' Tong said. 'It is a shame that the President and the Department of Justice are not focused on public safety but are wasting federal resources on attacking Connecticut with a baseless lawsuit.'
Mayor Justin Elicker said the city's executive order, which bars law enforcement from asking about immigration status, has not obstructed federal efforts. 'Our employees are abiding by both city, state, and federal law with the executive order that we have, and we will continue to do that,' Elicker said. He added that the DOJ complaint contains untruths and misleading representations, including incomplete quotes from his executive order.
What the Numbers Show
This is not the first time the DOJ has pursued legal action over sanctuary policies. Last month, a federal judge threw out a DOJ lawsuit accusing Colorado and Denver of interfering with federal immigration enforcement. That case represents the most recent precedent for similar DOJ litigation.
Connecticut's Trust Act, passed in 2013, limits state and local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities in certain circumstances. The law allows police to hold individuals on criminal charges without inquiring about immigration status, even when federal authorities request detention.
The DOJ has filed multiple sanctuary-related lawsuits across the country during this administration, targeting policies in various states and municipalities.
The Bottom Line
The lawsuit marks an escalation in the DOJ's ongoing effort to challenge sanctuary policies across the country. Connecticut officials have vowed to defend their laws in court, arguing they comply with the Constitution.
The case will likely turn on questions of federal preemption and whether state and local governments can limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The outcome could affect similar policies in other states.
A hearing date has not yet been set. Legal observers will be watching to see if the case follows the pattern of the Colorado lawsuit, which was dismissed, or proceeds to trial.
What to watch: How the court rules on the Supremacy Clause argument, and whether other states with similar policies prepare for potential DOJ action.