NEW HAVEN, CT – The Justice Department reportedly filed a lawsuit against Connecticut and their city of New Haven earlier in April, alleging officials leading the city and state are in “defiance of federal law” with the adoption and enforcement of “sanctuary policies.”
On April 13th, the Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court District of Connecticut naming both the state and city of New Haven, along with the state governor, state attorney general, and the New Haven mayor as defendants allegedly defying federal immigration law.
According to the lawsuit, the Justice Department asserts various policies enacted by state and local officials in Connecticut and New Haven as being inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause outlined in the Constitution, with Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate claiming such “sanctuary policies” are an act of “open defiance” regarding federal immigration enforcement.
“For years, Connecticut communities have paid the price of these misguided sanctuary policies. This lawsuit seeks to end such open defiance of federal law,” Shumate said in a statement pertaining to the lawsuit.
One such policy called out by name in the lawsuit was the 2020 executive order signed by New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker, dubbed the “Welcoming City” act, which mirrors policies adopted in numerous other cities and states which prohibit local law enforcement from inquiring about an individual’s immigration status as well as forbids law enforcement from meaningfully collaborating with federal immigration authorities.
In response to the lawsuit, Mayor Elicker alleged the claims made in the filing contain “untruths” and are “misleading” when characterizing the Welcoming City act he signed nearly six years earlier.
“The complaint that’s been submitted by the federal government has untruths in it and is misleading,” Mayor Elicker stated, adding, “There’s actually quotes from the executive order that have ‘dot dot dot’ where they don’t finish the sentence and the last part of the sentence of the executive order actually clarifies the beginning part.”
Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont also defended the state’s adoption of the Trust Act, which prohibits state and local law enforcement from engaging in any meaningful collaborative effort with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as it pertains to immigration enforcement endeavors.
Governor Lamont said that the Trust Act doesn’t interfere with the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law but rather demonstrates “a longstanding principle: the federal government cannot require states to use their personnel or resources to carry out federal enforcement responsibilities.”
As previously reported in Law Enforcement Today, the Justice Department has encountered difficulties with the federal courts regarding these types of lawsuits taking aim at what the administration defines as “sanctuary policies.” This past March, a motion to dismiss was granted in favor of Colorado when the state challenged a lawsuit brought forth by the Justice Department alleging they were in violation of the Supremacy Clause regarding non-collaborative decrees targeting ICE.
On April 13th, the Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court District of Connecticut naming both the state and city of New Haven, along with the state governor, state attorney general, and the New Haven mayor as defendants allegedly defying federal immigration law.
According to the lawsuit, the Justice Department asserts various policies enacted by state and local officials in Connecticut and New Haven as being inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause outlined in the Constitution, with Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate claiming such “sanctuary policies” are an act of “open defiance” regarding federal immigration enforcement.
“For years, Connecticut communities have paid the price of these misguided sanctuary policies. This lawsuit seeks to end such open defiance of federal law,” Shumate said in a statement pertaining to the lawsuit.
One such policy called out by name in the lawsuit was the 2020 executive order signed by New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker, dubbed the “Welcoming City” act, which mirrors policies adopted in numerous other cities and states which prohibit local law enforcement from inquiring about an individual’s immigration status as well as forbids law enforcement from meaningfully collaborating with federal immigration authorities.
In response to the lawsuit, Mayor Elicker alleged the claims made in the filing contain “untruths” and are “misleading” when characterizing the Welcoming City act he signed nearly six years earlier.
“The complaint that’s been submitted by the federal government has untruths in it and is misleading,” Mayor Elicker stated, adding, “There’s actually quotes from the executive order that have ‘dot dot dot’ where they don’t finish the sentence and the last part of the sentence of the executive order actually clarifies the beginning part.”
Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont also defended the state’s adoption of the Trust Act, which prohibits state and local law enforcement from engaging in any meaningful collaborative effort with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as it pertains to immigration enforcement endeavors.
Governor Lamont said that the Trust Act doesn’t interfere with the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law but rather demonstrates “a longstanding principle: the federal government cannot require states to use their personnel or resources to carry out federal enforcement responsibilities.”
As previously reported in Law Enforcement Today, the Justice Department has encountered difficulties with the federal courts regarding these types of lawsuits taking aim at what the administration defines as “sanctuary policies.” This past March, a motion to dismiss was granted in favor of Colorado when the state challenged a lawsuit brought forth by the Justice Department alleging they were in violation of the Supremacy Clause regarding non-collaborative decrees targeting ICE.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments