This story is part of CT Mirror Explains, an ongoing effort to distill our wide-ranging reporting into a "what you need to know" format and provide practical information to our readers.

Since January, President Donald Trump has issued a series of executive orders overhauling federal immigration policy.

The orders have made a number of significant changes, including: suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program; halting — and in some cases, revoking — immigrant parole programs for migrants from countries like Ukraine, Venezuela and Haiti; eliminating the CBPOne app that allowed migrants to make appointments to meet with U.S. border patrol; and allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to make arrests in schools and houses of worship. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress passed the Laken Riley Act, requiring ICE to detain unauthorized migrants arrested for burglary, theft, shoplifting, or causing serious injury. 

In the wake of the federal changes, Republicans and Democrats in the Connecticut legislature are divided over what to do with the state law, known as the Trust Act, that regulates how local and state police are allowed to interact with federal ICE agents. 

What is the Trust Act?

The Trust Act prohibits local and state law enforcement from arresting someone solely on the basis of a detainer — a request from ICE that police hold a person for up to 48 hours so federal agents can pick them up.

Local law enforcement and corrections 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.

The Trust Act also limits the amount of information local police can provide to ICE without consent, and it prevents prisons and detention centers from allowing ICE to “roam their facilities.” 

Where did the Trust Act come from? 

Mike Lawlor, an acting associate dean and professor at the Henry C. Lee College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Sciences at the University of New Haven, told The Connecticut Mirror that the Trust Act was passed in 2013 after Immigration and Customs Enforcement, under then-President Barack Obama, implemented “Secure Communities.” 

The program created a data-sharing partnership between the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, which houses ICE. When someone is arrested and fingerprinted by local law enforcement, those fingerprints, which are shared with the FBI, would then be shared with DHS, allowing ICE to view the immigration status of anyone being arrested. 

The original Trust Act passed unanimously in both the state House of Representatives and Senate. When it was modified in 2019 to further restrict when local law enforcement could comply with a detainer from ICE, that support had changed dramatically — no Republicans voted in favor of the revisions. 

Lawlor told CT Mirror that it was more difficult for law enforcement to fight crime if immigrants are afraid to work with local police. 

“If immigrants, documented or undocumented, think that by talking to the local police, they’re talking to ICE … then they would just stop cooperating as victims of crime, as witnesses of crime, and they just won’t talk to the police,” said Lawlor. “And so we know that’s why the relations between the police and the immigrant communities break down.” 

What changes do Republican lawmakers want to make to the Trust Act? 

In January, Republicans in Connecticut held a press conference calling for the elimination of certain parts of the Trust Act. House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford said he planned to propose a bill that would allow local law enforcement to turn over immigrants arrested for class A, B, C felonies or a “crime of family violence.” 

Class C felonies include 2nd degree manslaughter — including as the result of drunk driving — 2nd degree sexual assault, enticing a minor and assault of a public safety or health worker. 

Candelora argued during the press conference that the law protected violent criminals, and he said he would like to see some of the changes to the act made in 2019 repealed.

Senate Republicans Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield, Eric Berthel, R-Bethel, and Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, said in a later statement that the Trust Act had had “disastrous effects.” 

“Try to find anyone on the street, regardless of political affiliation, who supports shielding violent criminal illegal immigrants from federal authorities,” the statement read. “This is common sense, and poll after poll tells us that Republicans are on the right side of this issue. We must address this serious threat to public safety.”

What changes do Democratic lawmakers and activists want to make to the Trust Act? 

Activists are calling for the addition of new provisions to the Trust Act, including prohibitions on sharing data from state or town agencies with immigration authorities. A bill proposed in the legislature’s Judiciary Committee would prevent public agencies from sharing information about a person’s home address, workplace, school, or “the date, time or location of a person’s hearings, proceedings or appointments with the public agency.” 

The bill also requires state and town agencies to report any requests for information that they’ve received from federal immigration officials to the state Office of Policy and Management. 

Tabitha Sookdeo, the executive director of CT Students for a Dream, told CT Mirror last week that her organization is particularly concerned about data being shared from the Department of Motor Vehicles, which issues drive-only licenses to people without social security numbers, and about data from the Department of Social Services. 

In Connecticut, the state allows children up to the age of 15 to qualify for HUSKY health insurance regardless of their immigration status. Once they are registered, they are able to keep that insurance until the age of 19. 

Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, said in a statement earlier this month that the Trust Act had been created to help communities in a “time of recent uncertainty” around interactions between law enforcement and people who feared interacting with them because of their immigration status. 

“We live in a time, again, of uncertainty. And the fear that is being created now does nothing to increase public safety,” the statement read.

What authority does Connecticut have to refuse cooperation with the federal government? 

In an op-ed written for CT Mirror about the Trust Act, Lawlor referenced the 1997 case Printz v. United States, a lawsuit over whether the federal government could require background checks to be performed by state or local governments on people who wanted to purchase guns. 

The ruling found, in part, that “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.” 

The ruling was an interpretation of the 10th Amendment of the United States, which speaks to the principle of federalism — that states retain all power that is not expressly given to the government in the constitution. 

“The feds cannot require state law enforcement or local law enforcement to do anything,” Lawlor told CT Mirror, although he said local law enforcement can choose to cooperate if they wish. 

He added that people detained in a prison or a police department retained the Fourth Amendment right to refuse to speak to an ICE agent. 

The attorneys general of 12 states, including William Tong of Connecticut, also referenced Printz in a statement made in January. 

“It is well-established—through longstanding Supreme Court precedent—that the U.S. Constitution prevents the federal government from commandeering states to enforce federal laws … This balance of power between the federal government and state governments is a touchstone of our American system of federalism,” they wrote. 

The Trump administration has attempted to compel states to cooperate with immigration enforcement, including by informing state transportation agencies that federal funding would be linked to whether a state complies with “federal immigration enforcement.”