Connecticut Passes Controversial Law Allowing Lawsuits Against ICE Agents

The state's neo-progressive Democrats aim to undermine federal immigration authority, but legal experts warn the law may violate the Supremacy Clause.

Apr. 17, 2026 at 1:26am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A photorealistic painting of a lone ICE vehicle parked on a dimly lit urban street, with warm sunlight and deep shadows creating a contemplative, cinematic mood that reflects the complex political tensions surrounding the issue.As tensions escalate over federal immigration enforcement, a new Connecticut law aims to undermine ICE agents' authority through the threat of civil lawsuits.Hartford Today

The Connecticut state Senate has passed a new law that would allow state residents to sue federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents if they believe their civil rights have been violated. The controversial measure, supported by Governor Ned Lamont and Attorney General William Tong, is seen by critics as an attempt to subvert the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes federal law as supreme over conflicting state laws.

Why it matters

The Supremacy Clause is a cornerstone of the Constitution, providing the legal framework for resolving conflicts between state and federal legislation. Legal scholars warn that Connecticut's new law, if enacted, could be struck down by appellate courts for violating this constitutional provision.

The details

The new law, known as Senate Bill 397, was crafted with the assistance of Governor Lamont and Attorney General Tong. It would permit civil lawsuits against federal ICE agents, even if they are acting within the scope of federal immigration law. This is seen as an attempt by Connecticut's neo-progressive Democrats to undermine the authority of federal immigration enforcement.

  • The Connecticut state Senate voted to pass Senate Bill 397 on April 14, 2026.
  • The bill is now awaiting action in the state House of Representatives.

The players

Ned Lamont

The Democratic Governor of Connecticut who has supported the passage of Senate Bill 397.

William Tong

The Democratic Attorney General of Connecticut who has assisted in crafting Senate Bill 397.

Martin Looney

The Democratic state Senate President Pro Tempore who said Connecticut residents have been 'appalled' by the 'abuses committed by ICE'.

Stephen Harding

The Republican state Senate minority leader who said there is 'barrels of case law' favoring the overturning of Senate Bill 397 as unconstitutional.

Rob Sampson

A Republican state senator who blasted Senate Bill 397 as a 'Trojan horse, anti-police bill' that is 'patently unconstitutional'.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Connecticut residents have been 'appalled' by the 'abuses committed by ICE'.”

— Martin Looney, State Senate President Pro Tempore

“There are 'barrels of case law in favor of overturning [Senate Bill 397]'. After the smoke clears and the debate ends, 'All we're left with is another anti-cop bill from Hartford.'”

— Stephen Harding, State Senate Republican Leader

“I would call it a Trojan horse, anti-police bill. It cannot be overstated just how important they [ICE law officials] are to maintaining law and order. ... Most of this bill is patently unconstitutional. ... Immigration policy falls under the federal government. It's the United States, not the state of Connecticut, that makes immigration policy.”

— Rob Sampson, State Senator

What’s next

The bill now heads to the Connecticut House of Representatives, where it faces an uncertain future. Legal experts predict the law will likely be struck down in court if enacted, due to its potential violation of the Supremacy Clause.

The takeaway

Connecticut's neo-progressive Democrats are pushing the boundaries of state authority by attempting to undermine federal immigration enforcement through constitutionally questionable legislation. This case highlights the ongoing tensions between state and federal power, and the importance of the Supremacy Clause in maintaining the rule of law.