Lawmakers OK law allowing Connecticut citizens to sue ICE agents; they expect a federal challenge

HARTFORD, Conn. - After a stop-and-start debate over two days, lawmakers granted final legislative approval Friday for a new state civil rights law that would allow Connecticut citizens to sue federal immigration agents.

The measure showed sharp divisions with most Democrats in favor and all Republicans against the bill that will place restrictions on one of the nation's most controversial agencies, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE.

Outraged by shootings and aggressive tactics against protesters, Democrats pushed for the controversial measure that would permit civil lawsuits against federal officials if citizens believe that their civil rights had been violated. In addition, the bill would prevent ICE agents, along with state and local police, from wearing masks, except in limited situations. Republicans, though, countered that the bill was unconstitutional due to the Supremacy Clause that says that the powers of the federal government override the powers of the states.

The measure was passed after an unusual process that split the debate over two days. After nearly five hours of debate on Thursday night, the House of Representatives suddenly decided after 10:30 p.m. Thursday to postpone the debate until Friday in a compromise to avoid going much later into the night.

The House voted 91-53 for the measure with four House Democrats joining all Republicans against the bill. The state Senate had previously voted 24-10 for the ICE bill on strict party lines with Democrats in favor and Republicans against.

Democrats who wrote the bill have blasted ICE and President Donald Trump's administration as citizens have been detained in Connecticut and across the nation. Republicans responded that states have no authority over federal immigration policy or the actions of federal agents that would include ICE, the FBI and others.

Rep. Steven Stafstrom, a Bridgeport Democrat who co-chairs the judiciary committee, said the measure, known as Senate Bill 397, is necessary to aid citizens in Connecticut at a time when ICE agents have shot and killed American citizens in various cases.

"A witness to a crime should not be afraid to enter a courthouse," Stafstrom said. "I wish we were not here tonight to have to strengthen our protections against ICE. … It is a direct result of the policies coming out of Washington, D.C."

But Rep. Craig Fishbein, the ranking House Republican on the judiciary committee, scoffed at the bill as political.

"It's an election year, Mr. Speaker," Fishbein told colleagues on the House floor. "The legislation is mostly unenforceable. … We should have more cooperation between federal law enforcement and state and local law enforcement."

California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Illinois have all passed similar measures, and legislation is also pending in other states. While the issue is relatively new in some states, the senators noted that California's law is more than 30 years old.

Gov. Ned Lamont, who has spoken out against ICE, has pledged to sign the bill into law. The law would take effect on Oct. 1, the traditional date for new Connecticut laws.

"The people of Connecticut should not fear for their safety when visiting hospitals, schools, and religious and government buildings," Lamont said. "The provisions included in this bill include commonsense measures to protect peoples' constitutional rights from federal overreach."

Lamont raised the profile of the issue during his State of the State Address in February when he talked about ICE agents.

"That young mother shot twice in the head in Minneapolis," Lamont told the standing-room-only crowd at the historic Hall of the House at the state Capitol. "The White House called her a domestic terrorist; she reminded me of my daughter."

Lamont added, "Connecticut is protecting our schools and courthouses, where people go not to break the law but because they are following the law. ICE, everywhere you go uninvited, violence follows. Go home. We are keeping Connecticut safe without you."

Those lines brought a standing ovation from Democrats as they said later that the comments about Immigration and Customs Enforcement were the highlight of Lamont's speech. But some Republicans shook their heads in disagreement.

State Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato of Bristol, who is an attorney, turned around so that Lamont and others could see the words "Ice In" on the back of her jacket as she stood in the House chamber during the speech. On Thursday night and Friday, she spoke against the bill and supported several Republican amendments to make changes that were rejected by the Democratic majority.

"This bill is factually the same as the bill that passed in California," Pavalock-D'Amato said.

Provisions of bill

Known as Converse 1983 claims, the law at the state level would allow citizens to file lawsuits related to federal Section 1983. In California, the Bane Act allows lawsuits against those who use threats, coercion or intimidation to violate a person's constitutional rights.

House Speaker Matt Ritter of Hartford and other lawmakers said they fully expect the federal government to challenge Connecticut's bill under the Supremacy Clause, which states that laws of the federal government supersede laws passed by the states. Democrats predicted that Connecticut will be on solid legal ground, but Republicans said that they believe that the bill, if signed into law, will be overturned in the future in the courts.

The bill blocks all law enforcement officers - at the local, state and federal levels - from wearing masks. The measure has some exceptions, such as undercover operations, SCUBA teams, bomb squads, and SWAT teams, but broadly bans masks. The officers also must wear a visible name tag or a badge as some citizens have complained that they have had trouble identifying ICE agents.

Republicans pushed for their initial amendment that would have allowed masks if the facial covering included the officer's name and badge number on the outside of the mask. The measure was rejected, 102 to 48, on mostly party lines early in the debate at about 6 p.m. Thursday.

ICE agents, lawmakers said, should not be allowed to cover up their name tag.

The bill also mentions "protected areas," which blocks certain locations where people cannot be arrested by ICE agents. That includes schools, churches, synagogues, mosques, crisis centers, shelters, food banks, and day care centers, among others.

The bill also states that automated license plate reader systems should not be abused. Data obtained from the license plates cannot be held for more than 21 days unless there is an active criminal investigation, officials said. The measure also states that a license plate reader cannot be placed near abortion clinics so that patients cannot be followed in those areas.

Rep. Greg Howard, a Republican who has also served as a Stonington police officer for more than 20 years, said he has seen videos of various ICE incidents that have been criticized.

"I've seen actions that I don't condone," Howard said. "ICE operates with federal authority enforcing federal laws. … I don't see the need, I know there's not a need, to include state and local officers in this bill. … When more legislation comes out of here that targets state and local law enforcement … it is categorically unfair. We ask our police officers to do things that most other people wouldn't do. … Being a cop is tough today. Tougher than it's ever been."

Officers, Howard added, often see trauma at a level far beyond the average citizen, which causes mental anguish. He proposed an amendment that would remove state and local officers from the provision regarding masks and instead limit it only to federal agents.

But Stafstrom opposed the amendment, saying it would be unconstitutional to apply the mask ban only to federal law enforcement and not include state and local law enforcement.

"I don't see this as a swipe at law enforcement," Stafstrom said.

Howard later became involved in a dust-up with Rep. Nick Menapace, a Democratic freshman who voted in favor of the bill and against Howard's amendments regarding law enforcement.

"His summarization of the amendment was wildly inaccurate," Howard told reporters on Friday.

Rep. Tammy Nuccio, a Tolland Republican who said her "brilliant" daughter became a state trooper, said she agreed with Howard that law enforcement often fails to gain enough support at the state Capitol.

"It's that little dig, all the time," Nuccio said of the legislative attitude. "If this chamber, rightfully so, is disgusted by Minneapolis - that's Minneapolis. Not here. … Let's not loop in our troopers, our police."

Rep. Joe Hoxha, a Bristol Republican who has spent 30 years in the country, said it was "one of the proudest moments of my life" when he became a United States citizen in 2006.

"We are a very generous country, and we always have been," Hoxha told his House colleagues Friday. "All we ask is that everyone follow the law. … ICE, they're not the bad guys. This bill, in my humble opinion, would mark ICE as an agency with a broad brush."

A summary by the legislature's nonpartisan research office says that federal law enforcement agencies will be liable "when their officers interfere with someone taking a photo, digital still, or video of them or another officer performing their duties; makes an immunity defense unavailable in a civil liability action for an intentional tort committed while interfering with the taking of the photo, digital still or video."

Public Citizen, an advocacy group founded by Connecticut native Ralph Nader, has sharply criticized the federal agents.

"The lawless, ragtag goon squads of DHS, ICE, and the like are not making America safer," the group said. "And they are not performing anything approaching a legitimate law enforcement purpose."

The debate followed the recent announcement of a federal lawsuit brought by the Trump administration against Lamont, the state of Connecticut, the city of New Haven, and Mayor Justin Elicker over "sanctuary" policies and the state's Trust Act, which limits police cooperation with ICE agents.

Stafstrom described the lawsuit as a partisan move "by a weaponized Department of Justice."

_____

Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com.

_____

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.

This story was originally published May 1, 2026 at 7:40 PM.