Connecticut legislature votes on Trust Act amendments to strengthen local law enforcement

The Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature convened on April 8, 2025, to discuss significant amendments to the Trust Act, aimed at enhancing protections for state residents and limiting the involvement of state resources in federal immigration enforcement.

The meeting began with Representative Stashow presenting a bill designed to strengthen the Trust Act, which was initially passed in 2019. The proposed legislation seeks to clarify that all law enforcement officers, including prosecutors and members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, are bound by its provisions. It also aims to extend compliance requirements to certain public agencies and municipal departments. A key feature of the bill is the introduction of a mechanism allowing courts to enforce compliance if municipalities fail to adhere to the Trust Act.

Stashow emphasized the need for the bill in light of increasing reports of unsafe encounters between individuals attending court proceedings and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. The bill aims to ensure that state employees focus on local crime rather than federal immigration issues, asserting that state funds should not be used to support immigration enforcement activities.

The discussion included a range of perspectives. Representative Bishbaugh raised concerns about the implications of the bill on legal privileges, while Representative Fishman argued that the bill undermines the supremacy of federal law regarding immigration. He expressed strong opposition, stating that the bill could hinder cooperation between local and federal law enforcement.

Conversely, Representative Callahan shared personal experiences from his time in the judicial system, arguing that the Trust Act has made it difficult to address criminal activities by individuals in the country illegally. He contended that the bill would compromise public safety by preventing law enforcement from effectively communicating with federal authorities.

The committee also addressed concerns regarding the bill's language, particularly the absence of a carve-out for judicial warrants, which could complicate compliance for state contractors. Representative Howard highlighted this issue, suggesting that clarity on cooperation with federal authorities in cases of judicial warrants would be beneficial.

As the meeting progressed, various representatives voiced their opinions on the bill's potential impact on community safety and the legal framework governing immigration enforcement. The committee ultimately proceeded to a roll call vote on House Bill 7212, with mixed responses reflecting the contentious nature of the discussions.

In conclusion, the Judiciary Committee's meeting underscored the ongoing debate in Connecticut regarding the balance between state-level immigration policies and federal law enforcement, with significant implications for public safety and community trust. The bill's future remains uncertain as it moves forward in the legislative process.