The U.S. Department of Justice announced Monday that it is suing the state of Connecticut and the City of New Haven for policies that allegedly “interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of immigration laws.”
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District of Connecticut, argues that the state’s “sanctuary policies” protect criminals from being picked up by federal law enforcement. The lawsuit specifically mentions Connecticut’s Trust Act, which regulates how state and local law enforcement agents can coordinate with federal immigration agents.
The Trust Act generally prohibits Connecticut law enforcement from arresting someone solely on the basis of a detainer — a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that police hold a person for up to 48 hours so federal agents can pick them up — with some exceptions.
Local law enforcement and correction officials in Connecticut may only comply with a federal detainer request if ICE presents a judicial warrant, if the person is on a terrorist watch list or if the person in their custody has been convicted or pleaded guilty to a class A or B felony — crimes like murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery and first-degree manslaughter.
Last year, lawmakers modified the Trust Act to allow individuals to sue over alleged violations of the law; it also expanded the situations in which officials can comply with federal immigration detainers — and not be subject to such litigation. Sexual assault, injury or risk of injury to a child, strangulation, burglary with a firearm, possessing child sexual abuse material, enticing or sexually exploiting a minor and violating a protective order are now crimes that allow Connecticut law enforcement to hand someone over to ICE.
“The end of the Trust Act … is to intentionally obstruct federal law enforcement and thwart the constitutional obligation of the President of the United States to take care that the immigration laws enacted by Congress are enforced,” the lawsuit reads. “Such blatant disregard for federal laws that have been on the books for decades is not merely a political disagreement or passive abstention; it is deliberate, disruptive action that jeopardizes the public safety of all Americans.”
The lawsuit argues that the Trust Act violates the Supremacy Clause to the U.S. Constitution, which says when state and federal laws clash, federal laws take precedence.
“The United States has well-established, preeminent, and preemptive authority to regulate immigration matters,” the lawsuit stated.
The department also argued that the Trust Act has allowed people who have committed crimes to be released into Connecticut rather than deported from the U.S. The complaint laid out the example of Sanjay Sivan Walsh, who was convicted of two counts of second-degree sexual assault in 2023 and released on probation after 21 months. ERO Boston acting Field Office Director Patricia H. Hyde said that the Connecticut Department of Correction refused to honor a federal immigration detainer, instead releasing Walsh from custody. Federal immigration authorities arrested Walsh, a native of Jamaica, in August 2025.
According to the lawsuit, Connecticut has honored less than 20% of the civil immigration detainers issued by the federal government since 2020.
Attorney General William Tong said in a statement that Connecticut was a “sovereign state” and has the right to pass the Trust Act, which was intended to “prioritize public safety and ensure that all people can trust and rely on law enforcement to keep us safe.”
“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 that has no foundation in law or fact,” Tong said. “Connecticut is not a ‘sanctuary’ state, whatever that means. This term is meaningless and has no basis in Connecticut law.”
The DOJ’s lawsuit also took issue with an executive order issued by New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker in 2020, which prohibits city employees from divulging information about a resident’s immigration status or using city resources to aid “in the investigation or enforcement of any federal program.”
“In rejecting congressionally authorized means of enforcing federal immigration law, including detainers and administrative warrants, the Executive Order unlawfully regulates the Federal Government,” the DOJ lawsuit alleged. “By prohibiting information sharing with federal immigration authorities in most instances, the Executive Order acts to single out federal immigration authorities for disfavored treatment and frustrates the system of cooperation contemplated by federal law.”
During a press conference on Tuesday, Elicker said the lawsuit quoted the executive order in a way that was “misleading,” leaving out clarifying language. He said the claims that the order violated federal law were “blanketly untrue.”
“The plain fact is, our employees are abiding by both city, state and federal law with the executive order that we have, and we’ll continue to do that,” Elicker said.
Elicker said city employees do not ask people’s immigration status because “that is the federal government’s job.” He noted that it was important for people to feel comfortable contacting the police and accessing city resources in order to keep the community safe.
“We’re proud to be a welcoming city and to welcome immigrants. If people want to be a productive part of our community, we welcome people, period,” Elicker said. He added that they planned to fight the lawsuit “with all we’ve got.”
