- ACLU-CT sued federal officials over Hartford Immigration Court records from May through July twenty twenty-six.
- The complaint says more than ninety-nine point eight percent of in absentia cases this year ended in removal orders.
- The lawsuit seeks a First Amendment access ruling and says officials gave no response after two requests.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut sued federal immigration officials Wednesday, seeking records from the Hartford Immigration Court for cases handled from May 2026 through July 2026. The complaint names U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche and Chief Immigration Judge Angela Munson as defendants.
The organization says officials withheld basic records. Its request covers docket numbers, case captions and orders issued when people missed hearings.
The lawsuit asks a federal district court to recognize a First Amendment right of public access to those materials. It also seeks an order preventing Blanche and Munson from blocking the requests.
The group says it received no response after asking twice.
The complaint says the first request went out in July and a follow-up came in September. The requested records concern a defined three-month period, rather than every proceeding at the court.
The organization argues that the information should be available through the constitutional access right, without requiring a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
Dan Barrett, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, said courtroom attendance does not give the public a workable way to understand the court’s broader activity.
“while the public can attend court hearings and see the day’s docket, that is not a practical way for people to access that information and get a broad picture of what’s going on.”
Barrett also said full names are “not normally provided via FOIA” and are usually denied on privacy grounds. The case captions sought in the lawsuit would provide information that is not readily assembled from a daily docket.
The complaint links withheld records to a steep rate of removal orders
Data requested by the Deportation Data Project and cited in the complaint shows that more than 99.8% of cases decided in Hartford with in absentia rulings this year ended in a removal order.
The designation covered a large share of the court’s cases. More than 79% of all cases from January 1 through August 1 were marked in absentia.
An in absentia decision occurs when a person does not appear for a scheduled hearing. The records sought by the organization include the orders issued in those cases.
The complaint’s figures connect the access dispute to a broader question: how the court’s missed-hearing cases are processed and what outcomes follow. The requested docket numbers and case captions would allow the public to identify proceedings within the May 2026 through July 2026 period.
EOIR already publishes case categories, but not the records requested here
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, a division of the Department of Justice, releases case-level datasets containing several categories of information. Those fields include outcome, respondent birth year, nationality, primary language and relief sought.
The datasets also indicate whether the latest proceeding was an in absentia hearing. They do not replace the specific records requested in the lawsuit, which include docket numbers, case captions and the relevant orders.
Privacy restrictions form part of the dispute. Barrett said full names generally are not supplied through FOIA requests, while the organization contends that the First Amendment provides a separate basis for public access.
Blumenthal reported disorder after Tuesday’s courthouse visit
U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal visited the court Tuesday and described what he saw as “purposeful chaos.” He cited understaffing and an overwhelming caseload.
Blumenthal said an administrative judge presided remotely. Only one interpreter was available in court.
He also said none of the people appearing before the judge had criminal records and that few had attorneys. His account focused on conditions inside the courthouse rather than the records-access claim.
“a system that is running amok and doing injustice, and it is intentional injustice, designed to deport as many people as possible as quickly as the system is able to do it, regardless of the merits of these cases.”
The senator’s observations add a separate view of the proceedings at issue. The lawsuit seeks records that would let the public examine those proceedings outside the hearing room.
The complaint asks the federal court to declare that “the Immigration Court is bound by the First Amendment right of public access.” It also asks the court to bar Blanche and Munson from blocking the requests.
The requested materials cover hearings held between May 2026 and July 2026. The court’s ruling would determine whether the organization can obtain that information under the access theory advanced in its complaint.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
