Connecticut and the federal government are heading to court over a new state law that targets mask use and identification by federal immigration enforcement officers operating in the state, with the U.S. Department of Justice saying the rules improperly intrude on federal authority.
The Justice Department filed the federal lawsuit against Connecticut and against Gov. Ned Lamont and Attorney General William Tong on Friday, according to the reporting distributed by The Associated Press. The challenge centers on the law signed by Lamont this spring, which prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing masks while on duty and requires federal agents to display identification while operating in Connecticut.
Under the Connecticut law, the state also creates “protected areas,” including schools, hospitals, social service agency facilities and houses of worship. In those locations, Connecticut’s statute establishes limits on arrests, including barring arrests “solely” on the basis of a civil offense such as an immigration violation.
In the lawsuit, the federal government called the measure “blatantly unconstitutional,” arguing Connecticut lacks authority to dictate what federal agents may and may not do. The Justice Department said the dispute turns on the Supremacy Clause, which provides that when state and federal laws conflict, federal law takes precedence.
The department also argues that Connecticut’s requirements would affect how federal officers carry out their work, including their use-of-force decisions. In particular, the Justice Department said requiring federal law enforcement officers to follow Connecticut’s use-of-force standards—describing them as more restrictive than federal standards—would put officers in danger and could lead to “hesitation, indecision, or second-guessing” during situations that require split-second decisions.
The Justice Department further said the state does not allow use of force in certain circumstances it identified, including when executing search warrants or during “ Terry stops ” or stop-and-frisk-style brief detentions by police. The department argued that those constraints would discourage federal officers from pursuing criminal investigations in Connecticut.
The federal filing also raised concerns about officer identification. Lawyers for the government argued that requiring agents to remove their masks would put agents and their families at risk of harassment once identities are known, and said that members of the public photograph, film and publish enforcement actions online in a way that includes personal identities for what the lawsuit described as intimidation and harassment.
In response, Attorney General Tong said in a statement Monday that the new law was “fully lawful and necessary to protect public safety,” adding that he said the state would “vigorously defend the law.” Lamont, in an interview with WTNH on Sunday, said he did not foresee a settlement and called the federal lawsuit a “moral issue,” describing an effort to keep Immigration and Customs Enforcement away from courthouses, schools, houses of worship, and voting areas.
Lamont referenced previous detentions involving students, including the arrest last year of an 18-year-old at Wilbur Cross High School and the detention of a 19-year-old student in April who was later released. The reporting described Lamont’s concern that the federal enforcement activities should not proceed in the settings Connecticut lawmakers have designated as protected.
State-level responses to the lawsuit were largely split along party lines. Republican candidate Ryan Fazio, running against Lamont, said he voted against the law when it was brought to a state Senate vote and called it unconstitutional, arguing it would prevent law enforcement from arresting people illegally in the country who have been convicted of serious crimes. Senate President Martin Looney, Majority Leader Bob Duff and Sen. Gary Winfield, all Democrats, issued a joint statement saying they expected the Justice Department to file the lawsuit and characterized it as “purely partisan,” saying Connecticut would prevail on appeal because the state was asserting its police and public safety authority under the 10th Amendment.
Other Republican leadership figures also criticized the law. Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding said it was “unconstitutional” and “anti-cop,” and argued Democrats in the legislature prioritized political points over public safety and support for working-class families and officers.
The case follows similar federal litigation elsewhere. The reporting said the Justice Department has sued in other states, including New York, New Jersey and California over comparable masking and identification requirements, and cited that in California a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a law requiring identification for federal officers, finding it likely violated the Supremacy Clause.