Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong has once again aligned the state with a multi-state effort to restrict federal immigration enforcement. On October 20, 2026, Tong announced that he had joined 21 other attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit supporting challenges to the Department of Homeland Security’s practice of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests.
The brief, filed in Escobar-Molina v. DHS, argues that immigration officers must establish both unlawful presence and a likelihood that the individual will escape before a warrant can be obtained before making a warrantless arrest. Tong and the coalition contend that DHS agents routinely skip the “escape risk” determination, resulting in what they describe as unlawful arrests. A district court previously granted a partial preliminary injunction in the underlying case on December 2, 2025.
In a statement, Tong framed the issue in familiar terms: “Trump said he was going to deport violent criminals. Instead, he’s terrorizing communities with error-riddled warrantless and meritless arrests that have separated parents from children and crippled local businesses. His hyper-aggressive, rushed, and chaotic actions have caused needless deaths and injuries.” He added that basic due process requires Trump to “follow the law.”
The coalition brief catalogs alleged community harms from increased enforcement, including reduced school attendance, disrupted agricultural labor, delayed medical care, financial strain on families, and eroded trust between immigrant communities and local police. It specifically cites Connecticut examples and criticizes agents’ use of face coverings, plainclothes, and unmarked vehicles as contributing to fear.
The brief reads as an attempt to impose procedural hurdles that make routine civil immigration enforcement more difficult. Federal law has long permitted warrantless civil arrests when officers have probable cause of removability and a flight risk; the coalition’s position effectively demands a higher bar that critics argue prioritizes the convenience of removable aliens over the executive’s authority to enforce immigration statutes. Tong’s participation continues a pattern of using the attorney general’s office to contest federal priorities on immigration, even as Connecticut faces ongoing questions about non-citizen access to state services and voter rolls.
The amicus effort is limited to supporting the D.C. litigation and does not create new Connecticut law, but it signals that the state’s top legal officer remains focused on constraining enforcement rather than facilitating the removal of individuals who lack legal status. As the appeals court considers the case, the practical effect of any ruling will be measured by whether it further slows the identification and processing of removable aliens or simply restates existing statutory requirements.
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
