FREEDOM CORNER: Connecticut’s Trust Act Law

Connecticut’s Trust Act, a law passed in 2019 that outlaws law enforcement in the Nutmeg State from arresting someone at the request of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), came under fire last year from the White House.

In May, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi sent letters telling sanctuary states, cities, and counties that they “better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you aren’t, we’re going to come after you.” 

The letter was sent to Connecticut and several municipalities that the federal government deemed “sanctuary” jurisdictions. It also elicited a strong response from Gov. Ned Lamont, who rejected Connecticut being a sanctuary state and also defended the state’s Trust Act.

A tenet of the bill limits cooperation among local and state law enforcement with federal immigration officials, which is a core component of the loose definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction.

“We want local law enforcement focused on maintaining the safety of our neighborhoods and helping to get those who commit serious crimes off our streets. Connecticut’s Trust Act, which was originally bipartisan, is consistent with federal constitutional standards and reflects sound public safety priorities,” Gov. Lamont wrote in the press statement. “I am focused on making sure people feel safe in our schools, churches, and elsewhere. Nothing about this makes Connecticut a ‘sanctuary’ in any legal or practical sense — it makes our state one that upholds the U.S. Constitution, respects the rule of law, and prioritizes the safety and well-being of our communities.” 

The federal government’s immigration enforcement operations in Connecticut, their threats to sanctuary jurisdictions, and state and local leaders’ perception of the designation have all raised questions about the legality of a sanctuary state or municipalities. These factors have also raised questions about the legality of conditioning federal funding contingent on local and state cooperation with federal immigration agents.

How does Connecticut handle cooperation with immigration enforcement operations through the Trust Act?

The Trust Act was initially approved by the Connecticut General Assembly in 2019. It barred Connecticut law enforcement from arresting an individual solely on the basis of a detainer request, which is classified as a request by ICE for police to hold a person up to two days while federal agents arrive to pick them up.

The bill makes exceptions to this; for instance, it allows Connecticut law enforcement to comply with a detainer if ICE presents a judicial warrant, if the person is on a terrorist watch list, or if the person has been convicted or pleaded guilty to a class A or B felony — which encompasses offenses like murder and sexual assault.

State officials like Gov. Lamont and State Attorney General William Tong have said this law is in full compliance with federal immigration policies. Their claims are backed by judicial experts from the Connecticut American Civil Liberties Union chapter, which lobbied to get the Trust Act enacted before its passage. 

Mike Lawlor, the acting associate dean of the Henry C. Lee College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Sciences at the University of New Haven, said legal precedent that validates the Trust Act dates back to the U.S. Supreme Court Case Printz v. United States from 1997. 

“The federal government may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor command the states’ officers … to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program,” according to the court opinion cited by Lawlor in an article on CT Mirror.

Legal experts from the National Immigration Forum concurred with Lawlor’s assessment on the legality of legislation like the Trust Act. Experts with the forum also said that President Donald Trump’s White House and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cannot condition funding for other matters vital to municipal operations if localities decide to enact policies like the Trust Act.

“The federal government cannot impose funding conditions on cities if they are coercive or excessively broad,” wrote Arturo Castellanos-Canales in an article on the National Immigration Forum’s website.

Castellanos-Canales’ argument hinged mostly on the same legal opinion as the one described by Lawlor, but Castellanos-Canales added recent Supreme Court cases, like Murphy v. NCAA in 2018, further shows that Congress and the federal government cannot issue orders directly to states on matters that are exclusive to the federal government — like the enforcement of federal immigration law.

The legal and constitutional principles and arguments outlined by Lawlor and Castellanos-Canales also apply to “sanctuary jurisdictions,” which are not a legal term but rather a colloquial definition used to describe a place that institutes a policy that limits or defines the extent to which a local government will share information with federal immigration law officers.

DHS is defining localities that are “deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws and endangering American citizens,” as sanctuary jurisdictions. 

The department outlined the entire Nutmeg State, as well as the municipalities of East Haven, Hamden, Hartford, New Haven, New London, and Windham as sanctuary jurisdictions. But leaders in those communities had mixed reactions when asked by local media about the White House’s designations.

Most elected leaders in those cities, except for New Haven’s mayor, rejected the label. What they all generally agreed on was the sentiment expressed by Gov. Lamont.

“I don’t particularly support the current administration’s immigration policies. I don’t believe the city, on the whole, supports those immigration policies,” New London Mayor Michael Passero told The Associated Press. “But I also believe we operate completely within the law and respect the rule of law.”