The Trump administration is facing a lawsuit filed against the state of Connecticut and the city of New Haven over their sanctuary status. Sanctuary jurisdictions are states and cities that limit or refuse cooperation with Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) activity within their boundaries. In these areas, local officials are prohibited from sharing information, detaining anyone or using funds to support ICE activity.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, names Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker as defendants. Lamont and Tong are both required to file a response to the case by May 6, and Elicker must file by May 7.

Judge Alvin W. Thompson is presiding over the case. Thompson, a senior judge for the district, was appointed by Pres. Bill Clinton in 1994. Thompson previously presided and sentenced defendants in prior criminal immigration cases such as handing a 57-month sentence last December to a man from the Dominican Republic who was convicted for fraud and immigration violations.

The lawsuit targets Connecticut’s Trust Act which was expanded last year. The Trust Act prevents law enforcement in Connecticut from sharing information with ICE, allowing only the most egregious cases as exemptions.

In a letter from Janelle Medeiros, Special Counsel for Civil Rights, she said, “The United States of America is a republic with a limited federal government, reserving many powers to the sovereign states. As one of those sovereign states, Connecticut retains the right to decide how and when it will assist the federal government in carrying out federal functions, including, but not limited to, immigration law.”

The lawsuit seeks to determine if the Connecticut law violates the Supremacy Clause, Article IV, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The clause, which was a response to a lack of superiority in the Articles of Confederation, states that federal laws should be considered superior to state laws.

The lawsuit says, “Such blatant disregard for federal laws that have been on the books for decades is not merely a political disagreement or passive abstention; it is deliberate, disruptive action that jeopardizes the public safety of all Americans. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits a state or locality from thus obstructing Congress and the Executive.”

The lawsuit also targets an executive order signed by Elicker in 2020 known as “An Executive Order to Affirm New Haven a Welcoming City.” The executive order prohibits city officials and workers from asking residents about their immigration status and from cooperating with ICE agents. In 2023, a city official was placed on leave for allegedly sharing information with ICE about marriages involving non-citizens in violation of the executive order.

The lawsuit seeks to overturn the executive order, which says, “The New Haven Executive Order is in conflict with and reflects an obstacle to the Federal Government’s enforcement of the immigration laws. Specifically, in rejecting congressionally authorized means of enforcing federal immigration law, including detainers and administrative warrants, the Executive Order unlawfully regulates the Federal Government.”

Some Connecticut officials have expressed opposition to the lawsuit.

U.S. Rep Rosa DeLauro, who represents Connecticut’s 3rd congressional district which includes New Haven said, “New Haven is not a ‘sanctuary jurisdiction.’ The description has no legal meaning. Our state and local laws reflect a longstanding constitutional principle that the federal government cannot commandeer local officials to carry out its inhumane enforcement agenda.”

Additionally, John Larson, who represents Connecticut’s 1st congressional district said, “The real lawlessness here is the President’s transformation of federal immigration enforcement into his own secret police force. On his watch, agents have executed citizens in our streets, snatched mothers from their children in communities right here in our state and threatened peaceful protesters with excessive force across the country.”

Similar lawsuits from the Trump administration have been dismissed.