Republican lawmakers in Connecticut are pushing to roll back a state law that limits when law enforcement and correctional officers can cooperate with federal immigration agents. At a press conference on Thursday, members of the Legislature’s Republican minority proposed eliminating portions of the state’s TRUST Act, which originally passed with bipartisan support in 2013 and was later amended in 2019 during President Donald Trump’s first term in office. The law, which has been labeled as a sanctuary policy, has been criticized by Connecticut Republicans for years, but those attacks have increased in recent weeks as Trump prepared to return to the White House and promised to oversee mass deportations throughout the country. The current law in Connecticut primarily limits when local police officers, prison employees and other law enforcement personnel can comply with detainers, which are requests from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that ask local officials to hold someone in custody for up to 48 hours after they would otherwise be released so that federal agents can pick them up. ICE detainers are not the same as criminal arrest warrants, which are reviewed and issued by a judge. The paperwork that ICE sends to police departments and prisons specifically states that they are a “request.” The bill passed by the Connecticut legislature in 2019 restricts state and local officials from fulfilling those requests unless immigration officials have a signed judicial warrant, the individual in custody has been convicted of a class A or B felony or if the person is wanted under federal terrorism laws. It also prohibited law enforcement officials from using state resources “to communicate with a federal immigration authority regarding the custody status or release of an individual targeted by a civil immigration detainer.” Democrats and immigrant advocates in 2019 argued those restrictions were necessary to foster trust among local law enforcement and the immigrant communities in the state. And they said that, without the law, immigrants who are victims and witnesses to crimes would be hesitant to interact with police. Connecticut Republicans brushed aside the concerns about local law enforcement being seen as an arm of federal immigration officials on Thursday. They argued the current restrictions placed on law enforcement went too far by shielding violent criminals, and they said they “gagged” law enforcement from speaking to federal agents. “The Democrats have made a lot of changes to our criminal laws and our justice system that really empowers and emboldens the criminal element in the state of Connecticut,” House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, said. Candelora said he and his colleagues plan to put forward a bill this session that would enable law enforcement to turn over any immigrant who is arrested for a class A, B or C felony or is accused of a “crime of family violence.” Candelora emphasized that class C felonies in Connecticut included crimes for things like 2nd degree manslaughter, 2nd degree sexual assault and enticing a minor. Rep. Greg Howard, R-Stonington, rattled off several recent examples of non-citizens who were charged and convicted of such crimes who were later released from prison without state officials contacting ICE. Changes to existing law are unlikely Republicans at the press conference admitted that they would like to go further and repeal the entire Trust Act, but they acknowledged that would be a nonstarter since Democrats hold supermajorities in both the House and Senate after the 2024 elections. “If we were in charge, we would be eliminating and repealing these 2019 reforms,” Candelora said. “But the problem is we are not.” Sen. Gary Winfield, who co-chairs the legislature’s judiciary committee, said he has serious reservations about the Republicans’ plans. His biggest concern, he said, is that Republicans would like to turn over people to immigration agents simply because they’ve been arrested for a crime. Winfield, D-New Haven, said the fact that someone was arrested does not mean they committed that crime, which is why the current law limits law enforcement from cooperating with immigration agents unless someone pleads guilty or is convicted of one of the most serious felonies in the state. Rep. Steve Stafstrom, the other chair of the judiciary committee, agreed. “They are trying to throw out all due process rights for immigrants in our state,” Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, said. Stafstrom said it would be one thing to consider adding some Class C felonies to the list of crimes that people can be handed to over to ICE for, following their conviction. But he said that is not what Republicans are proposing. Republicans argued during the press conference that the TRUST Act put Connecticut law enforcement officers in a position where they were forced to violate federal law. “We all take an oath to the U.S. and the state constitution,” Rep. Craig Fishbein said. “And for any official to promulgate anything that says ‘do no cooperate with the feds,’ I think it’s a breach of their oath.” But others pointed out that Trump tried and failed to make that same argument during his first term. Michael Lawlor, a law professor at the University of New Haven, and other attorneys contend that states and municipalities cannot be compelled to enforce the U.S. immigration laws for the federal government. They can voluntarily agree to do so, but they aren’t required to, he said. The calls for a rollback of the law come at a moment when Trump’s new administration is threatening to withhold federal funds from states that limit cooperation immigration agents and to prosecute public officials who “obstruct” federal immigration laws. Connecticut is not alone when it comes to limiting when and how law enforcement can comply with immigration detainers. Several other states have similar laws on the books. And in 2017, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that it was actually a violation of the state’s constitution for law enforcement officials to continue to hold someone in custody just so immigration officials can pick them up at a later date. Lawlor, who served as Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s undersecretary for criminal justice policy and planning during Trump’s first term, said there are multiple U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have determined that the federal government can’t require states to address particular problems or “command” state officials. Those decisions, which were drafted by some of the court’s most conservative justices, created what is known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine, which is based on the 10th Amendment that enshrined state sovereignty. Law enforcement officials in the state, Lawlor pointed out, are still required to share with the federal government the fingerprint data and other personal information they collect from people when they make an arrest. But he said the state can’t be compelled to enforce U.S. immigration laws for the federal government. “We’re not violating federal laws. And the federal government can’t pass a law that forces us to enforce immigration laws because of the 10th Amendment,” Lawlor said. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong argued the same point on Thursday when asked about the Trump’s recent executive actions involving immigration and his threat to prosecute people who obstruct federal immigration law. “ICE should do its job. Stop complaining. Stop looking at Connecticut to do its job for you,” Tong said. “The federal government has broad authority over immigration. We delegate that authority as states.” “They have more than enough agents, with this president. I assume they have more than enough money, and nobody is interfering. Nobody is violating any laws here in Connecticut,” Tong added.