Judicial Branch denies marshals impeded ICE

Connecticut Judicial BranchConnecticut Judicial Branch spokeswoman

Denied

A Connecticut Judicial Branch spokeswoman said the branch's review found no evidence that marshals impeded ICE's work during the Meriden arrest, while its broader review of the incident continued.

“Based on our review of videos and interviews conducted to date, we do not believe that our marshals impeded the work of federal officials. ... As our review of the incident continues, we will be mindful of these allegations and will take action if necessary.”

Reporting

Open source (opens in a new tab)CT law limits federal ICE agents. Debate is over whether it can it be enforced or needs to changeQuotes from Ritter, Tong, Vaulman (for Governor Lamont), the Hands Off Connecticut coalition, Looney and the Judicial Branch spokeswoman

Case updates

Interested in what Connecticut's review of the Meriden arrest finds?

Get an email if the Judicial Branch or state police finish their reviews, or if ICE or Connecticut officials say more about the courthouse arrest.

Important updates only. Free. Confirm your email to start. Unsubscribe anytime. How we handle your email.

ICE agents walk outside the Meriden courthouse as bystanders film them.
Credit: Laura Tillman/CT Mirror

Where this statement fits

Did ICE's conduct at the Meriden, Connecticut, courthouse violate the state's TRUST Act?

On September 23, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, some wearing face coverings, entered a courthouse in Meriden, Connecticut, and took Welington Leonel Almara-Diaz into custody. Activists confronted the agents outside the courthouse entrance, asking why they were violating the state's TRUST Act, which limits immigration enforcement at Connecticut courthouses; sources disagree on whether the law's separate ban on masked law enforcement was already in effect that day. Judicial marshals moved activists away from the entrance; one woman was pepper-sprayed and another fell and was taken to a hospital by ambulance, though sources also disagree on who pushed her. The Connecticut Judicial Branch confirmed marshals had received a warrant of removal or deportation before the arrest and said it was reviewing whether state law was followed. ICE said the arrest was appropriate because Almara-Diaz had a 2023 removal order, and said judicial marshals impeded the arrest; the Judicial Branch later said its review did not support that. State officials, including Attorney General William Tong and Governor Ned Lamont's office, said ICE's conduct at the courthouse was improper. The dispute is whether ICE's conduct at the courthouse, including its use of face coverings and how the operation and marshals' cooperation with it were carried out, complied with the TRUST Act.

Read the full case

Source and context

Reporting

CT law limits federal ICE agents. Debate is over whether it can it be enforced or needs to change (opens in a new tab)Quotes from Ritter, Tong, Vaulman (for Governor Lamont), the Hands Off Connecticut coalition, Looney and the Judicial Branch spokeswoman

About this source

Reports on-record reactions from state legislative leaders, the Attorney General, the Governor's office, an immigrant-advocacy coalition and the Judicial Branch as the TRUST Act's October 1 protected-spaces provision approached.

Before the quotation

Judicial Marshal Services had received a warrant of removal or deportation before the September 23 arrest, and the branch said the same day it was reviewing video of the incident.

After the quotation

The branch's review of whether state law was followed was still ongoing when the statement was made.

How this statement is classified

Denied

The label describes this statement's response within the context above.

Why this label?

The branch explicitly says its review does not support the claim that marshals impeded federal officials, directly denying that part of ICE's account.

Recorded on
Published here
People and groups discussed
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

More from this case

Read the full case

Hands Off Connecticut calls the marshals' cooperation with ICE "an unforgivable act of collaboration"

Hands Off Connecticut

“When federal agents barged into the state courthouse in Meriden, they did not just abduct another community member, they fundamentally challenged the legitimacy of our state government. Marshals opened the doors wide for ICE while pushing the citizens out of their own courthouse. ICE went so far as to pepper spray bystanders and a marshal assaulted another, causing one to be taken from the court by ambulance to the ER. This is an unforgivable act of collaboration, for which we demand justice.”
Read statement

Share or embed this statement

Quote card: Connecticut Judicial Branch, Judicial Branch denies marshals impeded ICEDownload image (PNG)

The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.

Cite this record

Publisher
The Dispute Index
Title
Judicial Branch denies marshals impeded ICE
First published
Last updated
Permalink
https://disputeindex.com/events/3272-a-connecticut-judicial-branch-spokeswoman-said-the-branch

Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.

The Dispute Index. "Judicial Branch denies marshals impeded ICE". First published: 2026-09-29. Last updated: 2026-09-29. https://disputeindex.com/events/3272-a-connecticut-judicial-branch-spokeswoman-said-the-branch