Connecticut Prosecutors to Report ICE Requests Under Expanded Trust Act Beginning October 2025

Connecticut prosecutors and other criminal justice officials will face new limits on working with federal immigration agents when the state’s expanded Trust Act and an updated Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) policy take effect in October 2025. The changes require state prosecutors and DCJ staff to route any civil immigration detainer requests to supervisors, log every interaction with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and avoid spending state resources to alert ICE about a person’s custody or release except in defined, serious cases.

Supporters say the expansion protects due process and public safety by focusing cooperation on people with serious convictions. Federal officials argue the policy risks releasing offenders back into communities.

What changed and who’s covered

Connecticut’s General Assembly approved the expansion in spring 2025, extending the Trust Act’s protections to groups that were not previously covered, including:

• Prosecutors
• Juvenile probation officers
• The Board of Pardons and Paroles
• Additional DCJ staff

The law builds on earlier versions that limited cooperation primarily for police, correctional officials, judicial marshals, and probation officers. The goal remains to limit state participation in federal immigration enforcement while allowing targeted cooperation in serious criminal matters.

Key elements of the revised DCJ policy

The Advisory Board adopted the updated DCJ policy on August 13, 2025. Major requirements include:

• Supervisor review: All civil immigration detainer requests must be sent to a supervisor for review. The state’s attorney in each jurisdiction decides the response.
• Documentation: Every interaction with ICE must be documented — including date, time, and nature of the request.
• Resource restrictions: State prosecutors and DCJ employees are barred from expending time, money, equipment, or other resources to tell ICE that someone is in state custody or due for release, unless a statutory exemption applies.
• Exemptions: Notification to ICE is permitted in defined, serious circumstances such as:
  • People convicted of class A or B felonies
  • Suspected links to terrorism
  • 13 additional crimes added in 2025 (examples include certain crimes against children, sexual assault, and violations of protection orders)

Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin said the practical changes are limited because prosecutors normally do not hold or transport people and immigration status rarely affects Connecticut’s court process. Still, the policy sets clear expectations for handling detainer requests and recording contact with federal officials, reducing guesswork and ensuring consistency statewide.

The DCJ policy aims to formalize consistent practices: supervisory review, strict logging, and restricted use of state resources for civil immigration enforcement except where the law permits.

Policy changes overview — step-by-step

The expanded Trust Act and the updated DCJ policy create a straightforward sequence for staff who encounter an ICE request:

1. Refer the request to a supervisor for review by the appropriate state’s attorney.
2. Apply the statutory exemptions to determine whether notification is permitted.
3. Log every ICE interaction, including the request’s details and any action taken.
4. Notify ICE only when the law allows it, focusing on serious criminal convictions and statutory exemptions.

These steps are intended to prevent informal workarounds that could undermine the Trust Act’s limits while preserving cooperation for the most serious threats.

Data trends framing the debate

2025 enforcement activity provides the backdrop for the policy debate:

• ICE recorded 405 arrests in Connecticut from January to July 2025, more than double the 173 arrests during the same period in 2024.
• Deportations rose by 237.7%, with 145 more removals than the prior year.
• 348 people apprehended in Connecticut were transferred to out-of-state detention centers after January 20, 2025.
• ICE data show:
  • 25% of those arrested had only immigration offenses
  • 50% faced pending criminal charges
  • 25% had existing convictions
• In August, ICE’s four-day sweep Operation Broken Trust resulted in 65 arrests, with 29 charged or convicted of serious crimes.
• Some immigrants picked up in the state were transferred to ICE’s facility at Guantanamo Bay as part of 290 nationwide transfers this year (federal data cited in briefings).

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the policy’s guardrails are meant to limit informal cooperation while preserving targeted coordination for serious threats. Advocates say these numbers underscore why limits on state-federal cooperation matter; federal officials counter that higher arrest totals reflect a focus on people who pose risks.

Impact and reactions

Supporters and proponents:

• Lawmakers and advocates argue the expansion helps keep victims and witnesses engaged with local authorities.
• State Representative Raghib Allie-Brennan said it protects due process and public safety by preventing people from being funneled into ICE custody without cause while still allowing notification for serious crimes.
• Advocacy groups, such as Greater Danbury Unites for Immigrants, welcomed the update and urged further steps (e.g., banning ICE arrests at courthouses, narrowing information sharing by public agencies).

Federal response:

• The ICE Boston Field Office, led by Patricia H. Hyde, criticized Connecticut’s approach, saying the Trust Act forces state agencies to release individuals who have harmed others.
• Federal officials claim sanctuary-style policies complicate efforts to remove people with criminal histories and may increase public risk.

Community and legal perspectives:

• For immigrants without serious criminal convictions, the new rules may reduce fear that routine court dates or probation meetings could lead to ICE detention.
• Legal experts emphasize civil detainers are requests, not court orders — local entities are not required to honor them without a judicial warrant.
• Advocates highlight the logging requirement as more than paperwork: it creates a record that can deter casual cooperation and provide transparency if complaints arise.

Practical, day-to-day effects

• A probation officer receiving a call from ICE about a pending release must refer the call to a supervisor rather than respond directly.
• A juvenile probation officer who finds a detainer note in a file follows the same supervisory path.
• If an exemption applies (for example, a class B felony conviction), the state’s attorney may approve notification; otherwise the staff member must decline and document the request.
• The same process applies to prosecutors and Board of Pardons and Paroles staff.

Chief State’s Attorney Griffin emphasized these steps formalize practices already common in many offices. Although prosecutors do not control jails, the DCJ policy matters because it sets uniform expectations and requires auditable logs.

Legal context and future outlook

• Connecticut’s approach aligns with court rulings that treat civil detainers as voluntary requests absent a judicial warrant.
• The Trust Act’s focus on resource use and explicit permission to notify closes gaps that could allow informal notices or routine cooperation outside the statutory exceptions.
• Advocates plan to push for additional restrictions, such as a specific ban on ICE arrests at courthouses and narrower limits on public-agency data sharing.
• Federal-state friction is likely to continue as ICE increases operations; future federal direction could test how far Connecticut can shield noncitizens from civil immigration enforcement while meeting public safety goals.

For residents seeking official information on the legislative framework, the Connecticut General Assembly posts bill history, statutory text, and committee actions related to the Trust Act and subsequent amendments: https://www.cga.ct.gov/. The DCJ is expected to release staff guidance and training materials before the October 2025 start date to help offices apply the policy consistently across judicial districts.

For families, defense lawyers, and community groups, clarity matters: the expanded Trust Act aims to protect interactions—reporting crimes, seeking protection orders, testifying in court—while still allowing notification to ICE when the law identifies a serious, proven threat.

The debate will continue to be grounded in numbers — arrests, deportations, transfers — and in everyday choices in courtrooms and offices across Connecticut, as federal officials press for broader cooperation and state officials point to statutory exemptions, supervisor review, and logs designed to target the most serious crimes.