Connecticut Immigration: State Rules vs. Federal Law - and What to Do Here

This page is information, not legal advice. Connecticut's Trust Act, first passed unanimously in 2013 and amended three times since, is the state's primary immigration enforcement limitation law. Under the current Trust Act, Connecticut law enforcement can only cooperate with ICE when agents present a judicial warrant or the individual has been convicted of specified serious crimes. Connecticut has no 287(g) agreements - no local police department has formally agreed to act as ICE enforcement agents. In May 2026, Governor Lamont signed SB 397, creating protected areas (schools, hospitals, houses of worship, and more) where ICE needs a judicial warrant for civil arrests - but the protected areas provision does not take effect until October 1, 2026. The DOJ filed suit against Connecticut, the Governor, the Attorney General, and New Haven in April 2026 challenging the Trust Act; that litigation is ongoing. ICE continues to make arrests independently throughout the state. Verify current conditions with ACLU of Connecticut (acluct.org) or Make the Road CT (maketheroadct.org).

Connecticut has one of the most deliberately constructed immigrant protection frameworks in the country - built in layers over 13 years, starting with a unanimous bipartisan vote in 2013 and expanding through three subsequent legislative actions in 2019, 2025, and 2026. Each expansion was driven by documented gaps in the prior law. The 2026 expansion was signed four days after the DOJ sued Connecticut over the earlier layers.

Connecticut also has no 287(g) agreements. This means no Connecticut law enforcement agency has deputized its officers as federal immigration agents. The enforcement encounters families in Connecticut most need to understand are not local police acting as ICE - they are ICE agents acting independently, with their own federal authority, in spaces that Connecticut law is actively trying to constrain through the protected areas framework signed in 2026.

Part 1: What federal immigration law actually says

Federal supremacy and voluntary cooperation

Immigration law is exclusively federal. ICE carries out interior civil enforcement under the INA. The Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine (Printz v. United States, 1997) means the federal government cannot compel states to enforce federal immigration law. Connecticut's Trust Act framework is built on this foundation: Connecticut is declining to volunteer its resources and personnel for federal enforcement it is not legally required to conduct. Governor Lamont stated this directly when the DOJ filed suit: 'The federal government cannot require states to use their personnel or resources to carry out federal enforcement responsibilities.'

Civil detainers - requests, not orders

An ICE civil detainer (Form I-247) is an administrative request asking a local jail to hold someone for up to 48 hours past their release date so ICE can take custody. Federal and state courts have consistently found that civil detainers are not judicial warrants and that holding someone beyond their scheduled release solely on a civil detainer may constitute unlawful detention under the Fourth Amendment. Connecticut's Trust Act reflects this: it prohibits law enforcement from holding someone on a civil immigration detainer unless ICE presents a judicial warrant or the person has a qualifying criminal conviction.

Part 2: Connecticut's Trust Act - what it says and how it grew

2013: Unanimous foundation

Connecticut's Trust Act passed the House and Senate unanimously in 2013. The original law set conditions for voluntary cooperation with ICE: state and local law enforcement could cooperate with federal immigration agents, but was not required to do so for people without criminal histories. Connecticut was one of the first states to articulate the voluntary nature of local ICE cooperation in statute.

2019: Expanded restrictions

During Trump's first term, Connecticut expanded the Trust Act significantly. The 2019 amendment explicitly prohibited holding someone on a civil immigration detainer unless ICE presented a signed judicial warrant, the person had been convicted of a class A or B felony, or the person was wanted under federal terrorism laws. It also prohibited law enforcement from using state resources to communicate with ICE about the custody status or release of someone targeted only by a civil detainer. This law is the framework that DOJ's April 2026 lawsuit challenged.

2025: Expanded scope and private right of action

In May 2025, Connecticut lawmakers expanded the Trust Act again. The key changes: the law's protections were extended to more state entities, including juvenile probation officers, the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and the Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ), including state prosecutors. Previously, prosecutors operated under their own agency guidance rather than explicit Trust Act prohibition.

The 2025 expansion also added a private right of action - allowing individuals to sue towns or cities if local police help ICE in ways that violate state law, with legal fees covered if they win. It also expanded the exceptions to cooperation, adding sexual assault, child endangerment, and child sexual abuse material to the list of crimes for which law enforcement can cooperate with ICE beyond just class A and B felonies.

This was the expansion that ICE's Boston field office targeted in Operation Broken Trust in August 2025, calling Connecticut 'sanctuary no more' and criticizing the Trust Act as 'sanctuary legislation' that 'endangers communities.'

2025: Courthouse protection (November special session)

In a November 2025 special session, Connecticut lawmakers passed HB 8004. The law banned ICE agents from making arrests for civil offenses inside public spaces in state courthouses without a judicial warrant. It also banned ICE agents and all law enforcement from wearing masks inside courthouses unless medically necessary. This codified a policy enacted two months earlier by Connecticut Supreme Court Chief Justice Raheem Mullins. The courthouse protection was prompted by documented ICE arrests at and near Connecticut courthouses - including an incident where a man who fled a car accident ran into the New Haven Courthouse and was apprehended by ICE inside the building. The law also banned sharing of court database data with immigration enforcement and required attorneys certifying access to the state court system to acknowledge they would not use court data for immigration enforcement purposes.

2026: SB 397 - protected areas and civil suits (signed May 4, 2026)

Governor Lamont signed SB 397 into law on May 4, 2026 - four days after the DOJ filed suit against Connecticut. The law's main provisions:

Protected areas: ICE needs a judicial warrant to make civil arrests at schools (preschool through university), licensed hospitals and urgent care centers, houses of worship, food banks, homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters, childcare facilities, school bus stops, playgrounds, disaster relief sites, and cemeteries. These protections extend to the grounds, parking lots, and garages of these locations.

CRITICAL: The protected areas provision of SB 397 does NOT take effect until October 1, 2026. As of this writing, the provision is law but not yet operative. Families should be aware that enforcement at these locations continues under pre-SB 397 rules until October 1.

Civil right of action: The law creates the ability to sue federal, state, and local government actors in state court for constitutional violations - modeled on the federal Section 1983 framework but extended specifically to reach federal officers. This is an unprecedented mechanism in Connecticut law.

License plate reader restrictions: Data from automated license plate readers is restricted from use for immigration enforcement. Retention is limited to 21 days.

Mask ban: Federal officers are banned from wearing masks during enforcement operations in Connecticut.

Part 3: The DOJ lawsuit - what is being challenged

On April 12, 2026, the DOJ filed suit against the State of Connecticut, Governor Ned Lamont, Attorney General William Tong, the City of New Haven, and Mayor Justin Elicker. The suit challenges two things: the Trust Act's restrictions on ICE cooperation, and New Haven's 'Welcoming City' order, which bans city workers from helping ICE unless an agent has a judicial warrant.

The DOJ's legal theory is that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution - which establishes that federal law is supreme over conflicting state law - means that Connecticut's limits on local cooperation unlawfully obstruct federal immigration enforcement. The suit claims that Connecticut has allowed 'dangerous criminals' to be released into communities instead of being handed to ICE.

Connecticut's response, articulated by Governor Lamont, is that the anti-commandeering doctrine protects the state's right to set its own law enforcement priorities and that nothing in Connecticut law prevents federal agents from enforcing federal immigration law themselves - it only limits what Connecticut officers are required to do. The Trust Act 'does not prevent federal authorities from enforcing immigration law,' Lamont said. 'It reflects a longstanding principle: the federal government cannot require states to use their personnel or resources to carry out federal enforcement responsibilities.'

The lawsuit was pending as of mid-2026. It is part of a coordinated DOJ campaign against sanctuary jurisdictions that also targets Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York City, Los Angeles, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey cities, and others. Verify current status with the Connecticut AG's office or ACLU of Connecticut.

Part 4: Real cases that drove Connecticut's legislative response

The sequence of arrests that drove Connecticut's 2025 and 2026 legislation includes:

Kevin Rosero Moreno - a Meriden high school senior arrested with his father while attending an immigration hearing in Hartford, just days before his graduation ceremony. He was transported to Texas for six months. His arrest at a courthouse - the exact context later addressed by HB 8004 - became a focal point of the courthouse protection debate.

A 19-year-old student at Cheshire High School was arrested by ICE. The arrest sparked protests and was cited as a direct reason for SB 397's passage.

A nursing student at Southern Connecticut State University was arrested. Her case was cited by the bill's lead sponsor, Rep. Stafstrom.

A 16-year-old student at Meriden's Maloney High School was arrested. The arrest of a high schooler was among the cases that prompted SB 397's protected area designations, including school bus stops and school grounds.

These are not abstract cases. They document what enforcement without the protected areas framework looks like in practice. They are also the reason the effective date of the protected areas provision (October 1, 2026) matters: between now and that date, the legal framework that would have applied to some of these situations does not yet protect people in those locations.

Part 5: What the current framework does and does not do

What the Trust Act protects

Under the current Trust Act (as of mid-2026), Connecticut law enforcement cannot: arrest or detain someone solely on a civil ICE detainer; communicate with ICE about the custody status or release date of someone targeted only by a civil detainer; use state resources to notify ICE of someone's scheduled court date or appointment. These protections are operative now and apply statewide.

Connecticut prosecutors (DCJ employees) operating under the 2025 expansion are also now prohibited from using time, money, or equipment to notify ICE of someone targeted by a detainer.

What the Trust Act does NOT protect

The Trust Act limits what Connecticut state and local law enforcement will do. It does not restrict what federal ICE agents can do in Connecticut. ICE can arrest anyone in Connecticut who is removable - on the street, in their car, at their workplace, or near locations that will become protected areas after October 1, 2026. Until October 1, 2026, the protected areas in SB 397 are not yet operative. ICE can currently still make civil arrests near schools, hospitals, and houses of worship under pre-SB 397 rules.

No 287(g) agreements anywhere in Connecticut

Connecticut has no 287(g) agreements. This is a meaningful distinction. Unlike states where local sheriffs have signed on as ICE enforcement deputies, no Connecticut law enforcement agency has made that commitment. When you encounter Connecticut state or local police, you are not encountering a deputized federal immigration enforcement agent. That boundary holds statewide - including in the counties and towns that may have political disagreements with the Trust Act's broader protections.

Part 6: What you can actually do

Know the judicial warrant requirement for home entry

The most protective federal constitutional protection in any state is the warrant requirement for home entry. An administrative ICE warrant (Form I-200 or I-205, DHS header) does not authorize entry into a private home without consent. A judicial warrant signed by a judge naming the specific address is required. Do not open a door without seeing the warrant through a window or sliding it under the door first.

Know what Connecticut police will and won't do

In Connecticut, no local police officer has 287(g) authority. A traffic stop by Connecticut state police or a local officer does not carry immigration enforcement authority. The officer cannot hold you for ICE on a civil detainer alone. You have the right to remain silent on immigration questions. If you are arrested on a state charge, the Trust Act limits what local law enforcement can share with ICE unless ICE presents a judicial warrant or you have qualifying serious convictions.

Know the courthouse protection - and its limits

ICE cannot make civil arrests inside Connecticut state courthouses without a judicial warrant, under HB 8004 (effective since November 2025). This is currently operative. However, ICE can and has made arrests outside courthouses - in parking lots, on sidewalks near courthouses, and in the surrounding area. The courthouse protection applies inside; outside is not protected until the SB 397 grounds-and-garages provision takes effect in October 2026.

Know the protected areas timeline

SB 397 was signed May 4, 2026 and creates protected areas where ICE needs a judicial warrant for civil arrests - but the protected areas provision does not take effect until October 1, 2026. From October 1 forward, schools, hospitals, houses of worship, food banks, homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters, childcare facilities, school bus stops, and playgrounds and their grounds and parking areas will carry this protection. Before that date, enforcement at those locations operates under existing federal law with no specific Connecticut protection.

Part 7: Legal help and resources in Connecticut

ACLU of Connecticut monitors enforcement, litigates civil rights cases, and publishes Know Your Rights materials. They were among the organizations whose advocacy made SB 397's passage possible. Website: acluct.org.

Make the Road CT is a community organization based in Bridgeport that provides immigration legal services, Know Your Rights training, and rapid response support. Website: maketheroadct.org.

Connecticut Students for a Dream and SEIU 1199 have both been active in organizing around the Trust Act legislation.

IRIS (Integrated Refugee and Immigrant Services), based in New Haven, provides resettlement and legal services for immigrants and refugees in Connecticut. Website: irisct.org.

Connecticut Legal Services provides free civil legal assistance for low-income people, including immigration matters. Website: ctlegal.org.

For immigration court case information, call the EOIR automated line at 1-800-898-7180. To locate someone in ICE custody, use the ICE Online Detainee Locator at locator.ice.gov. Connecticut does not have a dedicated ICE detention facility - most detainees are transferred to facilities in other states. Call the ICE Detention Reporting and Information Line at 1-888-351-4024 if your person does not appear in the locator.

Immigration Advocates Network lists Connecticut legal providers at immigrationadvocates.org.

Connecticut has built one of the most comprehensive state-level immigrant protection frameworks in the country through four legislative actions since 2013. No Connecticut law enforcement agency has a 287(g) agreement. The Trust Act prohibits civil detainer holds and limits cooperation with ICE except when a judicial warrant is presented or serious crime convictions are involved. Courthouse protection is currently operative. SB 397's protected areas framework - covering schools, hospitals, houses of worship, and more - was signed into law but does not take effect until October 1, 2026. The DOJ is suing Connecticut over the Trust Act, and that litigation is ongoing. ICE continues to operate independently throughout Connecticut regardless of state law. The judicial warrant requirement for home entry and the right to remain silent remain the foundational federal constitutional protections. Contact the ACLU of Connecticut or Make the Road CT for current information.

This page reflects conditions as of mid-2026. The Trust Act (original 2013, expanded 2019, 2025) is in effect. HB 8004 (courthouse protections) has been in effect since November 2025. SB 397 was signed May 4, 2026; the protected areas provision takes effect October 1, 2026. The DOJ lawsuit was filed April 12, 2026 and was pending as of June 2026. Connecticut has no 287(g) agreements. Verify current legislation status, litigation outcomes, and legal resources with ACLU of Connecticut.