HARTFORD, Conn. — Prompted by the recent shootings in Minneapolis, state Senate Democrats called Monday for a new state civil rights law that would allow Connecticut citizens to sue federal immigration agents.

The measure would permit civil lawsuits against federal officials if citizens believed that their civil rights had been violated.

California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Illinois have all passed similar measures, and legislation is also pending in New York and Colorado. While the issue is relatively new in some states, the senators noted that California’s law is more than 30 years old.

Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney of New Haven said Monday that it is time to “test the limits as some other states have done” in the past, saying it will be a high priority for the Democrats who control the Senate chamber by a veto-proof margin. Reflecting the priority, the bill will be given a low number to signify its importance when the 2026 regular session starts on Feb. 4.

“Obviously, it could be challenged under federal preemption,” said Looney, an attorney who noted that federal law traditionally overrides state laws.

While the two shootings of American citizens in Minneapolis have been seen on videos from multiple angles, Republicans and Democrats have often sharply disagreed over what they saw.

“It’s highly questionable that law enforcement was put in danger in either of these two cases,” Looney said.

Senate majority leader Bob Duff of Norwalk said the Senate needs to take action this year because “the country now is in a very dangerous place” because of the recent shootings.

“What happened in Minnesota is disgusting, it’s despicable, and frankly, it’s un-American,” Duff told reporters Monday in a Zoom call. “It is truly, truly dangerous.”

If the new law is passed, the legal cases would initially start in state Superior Court, but they could be later transferred to federal court, officials said.

Sen. Gary Winfield, a New Haven Democrat who chairs the influential judiciary committee, said, “The Constitution of the United States means something. … We have a responsibility to have a very robust, and I’m sure animated, discussion around this.”

Senate Republican leader Stephen Harding of Brookfield agreed, saying the measure should be explored in the 36-member Senate during the upcoming legislative session that ends in early May.

“Let’s have the debate,” Harding said Monday. “Anyone who breaks state or federal laws should be held accountable for their actions. In the meantime, the amped-up rhetoric and the violence must end. Anyone who doesn’t like how the law is enforced is free to advocate for different laws and to protest peacefully.”

Sen. Matt Lesser, a Middletown Democrat who is strongly pushing the bill, said the American Civil Liberties Union has been a critical partner in preparing legislation.

“We’ve watched federal agents kill people in front of witnesses,” said Chelsea-Infinity Gonzalez, the public policy director for the ACLU of Connecticut. “We’ve watched these victims be vilified, while those in power face no meaningful consequences. … These are not isolated tragedies. … We recognize what happens when power goes unchecked.”

The law, she said, “has been interpreted differently in different jurisdictions,” particularly concerning the controversial issue of qualified immunity that determines which government officials can be sued.

Known as Converse 1983 claims, the law at the state level would allow citizens to file lawsuits related to federal Section 1983. In California, the Bane Act allows lawsuits against those who use threats, coercion or intimidation to violate a person’s constitutional rights.

Public Citizen, an advocacy group founded by Connecticut native Ralph Nader, sharply criticized the federal agents.

“The lawless, ragtag goon squads of DHS, ICE, and the like are not making America safer,” the group said. “And they are not performing anything approaching a legitimate law enforcement purpose.”

The group added, “ICE is now the largest and most expensive law enforcement agency in America, with a budget greater than that of every other federal law enforcement agency, including the FBI, combined. In fact, the U.S. is now spending more on ICE than all but a handful of other nations spend on their entire military.”

In comments to The Wall Street Journal, Trump said, “I don’t like any shooting. I don’t like it.” He added, “But I don’t like it when somebody goes into a protest and he’s got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines loaded up with bullets also. That doesn’t play good, either.”

Federal

At the federal level, some candidates in the Democratic primary for the First Congressional District say that ICE should be abolished.

U.S. Rep. John B. Larson of East Hartford voted with all of Connecticut’s House members recently against a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security and ICE because the measure did not include reforms of ICE. He has also co-sponsored various bills that include the No Secret Police Act that would require ICE agents to identify themselves and other measures.

“We cannot allow these authoritarian abuses of power to go on for one minute longer in the United States of America – whether it is families being separated by armed, masked agents here in Connecticut, or residents being killed in Minneapolis,” Larson said. “Accountability starts at the top – with Donald Trump and Kristi Noem. That is why I have called for Secretary Noem’s impeachment and will continue to oppose funding for the Department of Homeland Security until this lawlessness ends, and ICE is reined in.”

Former Hartford mayor Luke Bronin called for the abolishment in a two-part plan on Jan. 15, before the latest shooting on Saturday in Minneapolis.

“ICE is a broken agency that is actively recruiting unqualified thugs and violating Americans’ civil rights,” Bronin said. “It’s important to remember that ICE has only existed since 2003, and it has become something that was never intended by Congress 20 years ago, or by our founders 250 years ago. Safety, rule of law, and common sense demand abolishing the current version of ICE and rebuilding immigration enforcement.”

Bronin added, “When a federal agency is going door to door asking Americans for their papers, profiling people based on their accents or looks, sending masked agents to schools and churches, and repeatedly using excessive force with zero accountability or oversight, it’s time to start over. We will still need immigration enforcement, but we do not need and should not keep this agency.”

State Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, a West Hartford Democrat running in the four-way primary, issued a video that was direct to the point.

“I say, abolish ICE,” Gilchrest said. In a separate video, she added, “We need to stop this. This is insane. The Trump administration has a paramilitary and is killing people.”

Hartford attorney Ruth Fortune said that ICE has not been carrying out its mission.

“We could have secured the border without the cruelty that Trump has engaged in,” Fortune said. “We could have made communities safer without masked ICE authorities in people’s homes tearing families apart when there already is an infrastructure of municipal police to address crime. It is not making us safer. They’re not going after the most violent people.”

_____

©2026 Hartford Courant. Visit courant.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.