DOJ Takes Legal Action Against Connecticut Sanctuary Policies

Clear Facts

• The U.S. Justice Department has filed suit against Connecticut, Governor Ned Lamont, Attorney General William Tong, New Haven, and Mayor Justin Elicker over sanctuary policies
• The DOJ argues the state’s Trust Act and local sanctuary policies violate federal law and obstruct immigration enforcement
• State and local officials deny any wrongdoing and vow to defend their policies in court

The U.S. Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against Connecticut and the city of New Haven, challenging sanctuary policies the federal government argues interfere with immigration enforcement and endanger public safety. The complaint names Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont, Attorney General William Tong, New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker, and their respective jurisdictions as defendants.

At the center of the legal challenge is Connecticut’s Trust Act and related sanctuary policies that federal prosecutors say violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The DOJ contends these policies have allowed dangerous criminals to be released into Connecticut communities and represent deliberate efforts to obstruct federal law enforcement.

“For years, Connecticut communities have paid the price of these misguided sanctuary policies,” Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the DOJ’s Civil Division said in a statement.

“This lawsuit seeks to end such open defiance of federal law.”

Mayor Elicker disputes the federal government’s characterization of his city’s policies. In 2020, he signed an executive order preventing law enforcement from inquiring about immigration status during interactions with residents. He maintains this does not obstruct federal immigration enforcement.

“The complaint that’s been submitted by the federal government has untruths in it and is misleading. There’s actually quotes from the executive order that have ‘dot dot dot’ where they don’t finish the sentence and the last part of the sentence of the executive order actually clarifies the beginning part,” Elicker told Fox 61.

“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,” the mayor added.

Governor Lamont defended the state’s approach, arguing that Connecticut law does not prevent federal authorities from carrying out their duties. He framed the issue as a matter of constitutional federalism rather than obstruction.

“We will defend Connecticut’s laws vigorously against the complaints outlined in the federal government’s lawsuit. Our Trust Act and related policies are consistent with the Constitution and reflect our responsibility to govern responsibly, protect public safety, and uphold the rights of all residents,” Lamont said.

“Connecticut respects the rule of law and the constitutional roles of both federal and state governments. Connecticut law enforcement prioritizes serious criminal activity and works every day to keep our communities safe, while also respecting constitutional protections afforded to residents and maintaining trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.”

Attorney General Tong took a more combative stance in his response, calling the lawsuit baseless and characterizing it as a waste of federal resources.

“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. Connecticut is not a ‘sanctuary’ state, whatever that means. This term is meaningless and has no basis in Connecticut law. We will defend Connecticut and Connecticut families and fight this lawless attack with every fiber of our being,” he said.

The Connecticut case represents the latest front in the Justice Department’s nationwide campaign against sanctuary policies. Last month, a federal judge dismissed a similar DOJ lawsuit against Colorado and Denver, raising questions about the legal viability of these challenges.

The outcome in Connecticut will be closely watched as a test of whether states and localities can implement policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The case directly addresses the tension between state sovereignty and federal supremacy in immigration matters, a constitutional question that has divided jurisdictions across the country.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.