Court Cases

Since President Trump took office, the Hartford Immigration Court’s caseload has grown significantly. The court will make removal decisions after hearings that last only minutes, and some people are ordered removed without being present in court, a decision known as an “in absentia” removal order. So, in July 2026, the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut (ACLU-CT) asked the Hartford Immigration Court for basic records about cases heard between May and July 2026, including case numbers, names, and orders issued during that people when people were ordered removed from the United States after missing their hearings. The ACLU-CT followed up in September but received no response and was not given an explanation for why the records were being withheld. In September 2026, the ACLU-CT filed suit against U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche and Angela Munson, Chief of Immigration Judge of the Hartford Immigration Court, challenging the court’s refusal to provide access to basic immigration court records that the ACLU-CT believes are open to the public under the First Amendment. This includes: case numbers, case names, and orders issued when people did not appear for their hearings. The lawsuit follows months of attempts to obtain these records. Immigration courts decide whether people are permitted to stay in our country or will be forced to leave. The ACLU-CT says access to basic court records allows journalists, advocates, and attorneys, to understand how these proceedings are being conducted and identify potential problems. The ACLU-CT, represented in the suit by Alexa Millinger and William Fish of Hinckley, Allen & Snyder’s Hartford office, as well as Dan Barrett, Jaclyn Blickley, and Joseph Gaylin of its legal department, asks the United States District Court to issue a declaration that the Immigration Court is bound by the First Amendment right of public access, and to enjoin Blanche and Munson from blocking the ACLU’s records requests. Follow this page for updates.

With partners from the ACLU Foundation of Vermont, the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut has filed an amicus brief in the case of Green v. Quiros. This means that while we are not directly involved in this case, we have filed this brief because we have a substantial interest to oppose government actions resulting in unjustified and degrading searches that intrude on an incarcerated person's right to bodily integrity—such as in this case. Courtney Green, the plaintiff and appellant, filed this case to challenge the Connecticut Department of Correction's (DOC) strip search policy that incarcerated people be subjected to body cavity searches following video calls. The DOC argues that when video calls and contact visits occur in the same room, it creates an opportunity for the exchange of contraband. However, the DOC has not offered any evidence that contraband has ever been recovered from a video call participant. The case focuses on the DOC's strip search policy while specifically arguing that two specific searches to which Mr. Green was subjected were unjustified and particularly egregious as they were conducted in a public setting and in an unhygienic manner. In July 2026, the ACLU Foundation of Vermont and ACLU Foundation of Connecticut worked together to file an amicus brief in this case. The brief highlights how dehumanizing, degrading, and humiliating body cavity searches are and subjecting people who are incarcerated to body searches after video calls is degrading, unsafe, and will not prevent the introduction of contraband. Not only that, but strip searches can be extremely dangerous, creating opportunities for abuse that can—and historically have been—taken advantage of. Follow this case page for updates on our involvement in Green v. Quiros.

According to public reporting, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has requested voter data and other election information from several states over the summer, with plans to eventually request data from all 50 states. The requested information varies by state, with some seeking the statewide voter registration lists, including birthdates and other sensitive personal information about each voter. Some states have received requests that have pertained to efforts to remove voters from the lists (i.e., list maintenance or purging) while others have also received invitations to discuss a potential “information-sharing agreement” regarding noncitizen registrants. These lawsuits appear to be part of the DOJ's efforts to build a national voter database without congressional authorization, improperly question the validity of state voter rolls, and intimidate eligible voters in Connecticut and across the country. In Connecticut, the demands for complete voter registration data for every registered voter in the state include sensitive and private information such as the Social Security and driver’s license numbers. In January 2026, the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut intervened in this case with Common Cause and one individual to protect the privacy of Connecticut residents and to ensure that our sensitive personal information is not misused to intimidate or disqualify any eligible voter from exercising their most fundamental right. In July 2026, a federal court dismissed the lawsuit and denied the United States' motion to compel the production of Connecticut's Statewide Voter Registration List, protecting the sensitive personal data of Connecticut's registered voters. This decision stands as a victory ensuring the private information of every registered voter in this state stays squarely and securely where it belongs. Follow this page for updates on this case.

Since 2015, Connecticut lawmakers have grappled with the ramifications of sentencing young people to years—sometimes decades in prison. That year, the legislature passed a law that expanded parole eligibility to children under the age of eighteen. Then, in 2023, it passed a law that extended eligibility to people who committed a crime under the age of twenty-one. Originally, the bill was straightforward, anyone who committed a crime under twenty-one could be eligible for youth-based parole. But it was amended: the version that passed limited eligibility to people who were sentenced before October 1, 2005. This law was designed to expand youth-based parole eligibility, but the addition of this arbitrary cut-off works against that intention. Instead of being able to tell their story and potentially return home, an entire group of people is denied that opportunity based on an arbitrary date. That kind of legislative line drawing is unconstitutional. In April 2026, the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut sued on behalf of Brian Ebron, who is not eligible for parole solely because he was sentenced in 2007. The lawsuit contends that Mr. Ebron’s exclusion from consideration for parole violates his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is because the October 1, 2005, sentencing date cut-off is arbitrary and irrational: it doesn’t track sentencing reforms (those came after 2010, per a lawmaker’s own floor statement), doesn’t align with brain science, doesn’t reduce costs, and — critically — worsens racial disparities in sentencing.

The ACLU of Connecticut has filed an expedited petition in the state's appellate court for the immediate release of a video showing the death of J'Allen Jones inside the Garner Correctional Institution.

In an effort to encourage fellow Connecticut residents to take action to save democracy and consider the rule of law, the Visibility Brigade, including our clients Erin Quinn and Robert Marra, turned to the streets to be heard and seen. Standing on local roads where they pass over I-95, Ms. Quinn and Dr. Marra have held signs condemning the government overreach and abuse of power that they have been witnessing and continue to witness. State law enforcement have threatened, detained, and prosecuted several of the protestors in the Visibility Brigade, claiming that no signs may ever be shown to interstate traffic or that sign-holders are criminally liable for drivers' reactions to the signs. These signs include a variety of messages, including language such as "Due process is the law," "These voices melt ICE," "No Kings," "Love Liberty? Resist Tyranny," and "Hands Off Our Judges." State police have insisted that sign-holders are trespassing, or illegally displaying signs that may distract drivers. Meanwhile, Connecticut allows other roadway signage, including large electronic billboards. Overpass streets and public sidewalks are traditional public forums where the right to free speech remains inalienable. The ACLU Foundation of Connecticut is suing to force the defendants—Department of Transportation Commissioner Garrett Eucalitto and Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Commissioner Ronnell Higgins—to abide by the First Amendment and stop threatening or prosecuting overpass demonstrators. Follow this case page to stay updated on Quinn v. Eucalitto.

The lawsuit details how the unlawful termination of F-1 student visa status violates the Administrative Procedures Act and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

The ACLU of Connecticut filed an emergency motion to intervene and obtain video exhibits played at an October trial in the United States District Court in Mustafa v. Byars.

The town of Avon has spent thousands of dollars trying to keep secret a log of alleged sexual harassment by the chief of police. The ACLU Foundation of Connecticut and local attorney J.R. Sastre are fighting for transparency.