Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trust Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary Committee debates Trust Act expansion aimed at limiting local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement
Summary
A Judiciary Committee bill that would expand state 'trust act' protections and limit municipal/state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement drew extended debate on constitutional and public-safety grounds before the committee voted to send the bill to the floor with committee language (LCO 7137).
Representative Staffstrom introduced a bill to expand Connecticut's Trust Act protections, clarifying the statute's application to state and municipal agencies and to prosecutors and the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The bill would increase reporting on compliance with the Trust Act, allow a court to compel compliance by a noncomplying municipality, and prohibit recipients of state funds from using those funds to carry out immigration-enforcement activities.
Supporters said the measure seeks to prevent diversion of state and municipal law-enforcement resources to federal immigration work, to avoid unsafe encounters near courthouses, and to ensure that state contractors do not use state subsidies to assist deportation operations. Opponents argued the proposal risks impeding federal immigration enforcement, raised constitutional concerns about supremacist federal law and cooperation, and said the bill could reduce public safety by making it harder to remove criminal noncitizens already in custody.
Representative Staffstrom said the change was intended to protect community trust and to limit the use of state resources for federal immigration activities. Representative Bishbaugh asked about statutory language and its application to commonly recognized legal privileges; the proponent said those existing exceptions would continue to apply but offered to clarify language as the bill moves forward. Multiple members debated whether the statute should include judicial-warrant exceptions for private entities that receive state funds; the proponent indicated openness to adding such clarity.
The bill also includes reporting requirements to the committee and a process for court enforcement of municipal compliance. Opponents including Representative Callahan and Representative Dubinsky argued the bill would hinder effective cooperation with federal authorities and could endanger public safety by making it harder to remove dangerous noncitizens already in custody.
Action: the committee voted to report HB 7212 (JFS) to the floor with LCO 7137. The clerk recorded the roll call; the measure was reported to the floor as read.
