is taking CT, New Haven to court. Does the suit have merit?

By Alex Putterman, Staff Writer

President Donald Trump speaks with reporters outside the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, April 13, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Last week, the Trump administration announced it was suing the state of Connecticut and the city of New Haven over immigration policies the federal government says makes them “sanctuary” jurisdictions.

Over the past year, courts have thrown out several similar Trump administration suits against other states and cities that restrict cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. Many of these cases, experts note, have raised issues courts previously ruled on during Trump’s first term. 

Sheila Hayre, a law professor at Quinnipiac who specializes in immigration law, said she found little novel about the administration’s suit against Connecticut and New Haven.

“I really wanted to read it because I thought we might see some new and interesting arguments that hadn’t already been raised in prior administrations in prior decades,” Hayre said. “I was actually surprised to see that it doesn’t really raise any interesting issues that haven’t already been hashed out by the courts.”

The Justice Department complaint seeks to invalidate Connecticut’s Trust Act, which limits how and when local police can share information with federal immigration agents, as well as local policies enacted in New Haven.

The suit, which names Gov. Ned Lamont, Attorney General William Tong and New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker as defendants, accuses Connecticut officials of “obstructing and refusing to comply with federal immigration laws over a period of years,” which it says “has resulted in countless criminals being released into Connecticut who should have been held for immigration removal from the United States.”

While the Trump administration claims Connecticut’s Trust Act is “illegal under federal law,” state officials say this isn’t true, arguing they are not obligated to help immigration authorities do their jobs.

“Our laws do not prevent federal authorities from enforcing immigration law,” Lamont said in a statement last week. “Rather, they reflect a longstanding principle: the federal government cannot require states to use their personnel or resources to carry out federal enforcement responsibilities.”

Tong, in a statement, promised he and other other defendants would “fight this lawless attack with every fiber of our being.”

In similar cases, courts have almost uniformly found in favor of the defendants and against the Trump administration. One federal judge dismissed a suit against Illinois, ruling the Trump administration lacked standing to sue. Another threw out a similar suit against the city of Denver and state of Colorado, concluding that “Colorado and Denver have the right to refuse to expend their resources to implement a federal regulatory program.” A third dismissed a suit against Rochester, New York on technical grounds.

Additional suits, against New York City, Los Angeles, Boston and others, remain pending.

Courts have also shot down other Trump administration efforts to deter cities and states from maintaining welcoming stances toward immigrants. A federal judge late last year upheld a New York law limiting immigration arrests near courthouses, and multiple judges have blocked the federal government from withholding federal funds from jurisdiction it considers to have “sanctuary” policies.

Though federal law supercedes state law in many contexts, Hayre said, the Trump administration has no right to tell state and local police how they should employ their resources.

“States have the right to use their law enforcement,” she said. “State law enforcement is state law enforcement.”

The administration, she said, is “wasting everybody’s time rehashing these legal issues”

Mike Lawlor, a criminal justice professor at the University of New Haven, may not be perfectly objective about the Trust Act, having been part of then-Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s administration when the law originally passed in 2013. Still, he agrees with Hayre’s assessment that the issue is cut-and-dried: The statute does not violate any federal laws, he said, and the Trump administration has no basis to contest it.

“They haven’t really in their lawsuit said which federal law they claim Connecticut or New Haven is actually violating,” Lawlor said. “My takeaway is it’s just performative.”

Lawlor said he can’t envision a scenario where the courts side with the Trump administration, given how they have ruled in similar cases.

“This entire enterprise is a waste of time and money for taxpayers,” he said. “Because you know the outcome.”