Judicial Branch denies marshals impeded ICE
Connecticut Judicial Branch spokeswoman
“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.”
Source and context
Reporting
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
Case context: Did ICE's conduct at the Meriden, Connecticut, courthouse violate the state's TRUST Act?
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
Did ICE's conduct at the Meriden, Connecticut, courthouse violate the state's TRUST Act?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full caseHands 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
“The agency operating ICE inherently understands that some of what they’re doing is shameful, and that’s why they don’t want to be identified. It’s an extraordinary thing for people engaged in law enforcement to think they have to remain anonymous. It means that they don’t have confidence in the morality of their own mission. FBI agents do not wear masks. ATF agents — they don’t wear masks, either. Federal marshals who protect courthouses — they don’t wear masks.”Read statement
“If you look at the law that we passed, adherence to that law is going to avoid the type of situations that we’ve seen that put not only officers in harm’s way but also people they’re trying to apprehend. Storming courthouses or hospitals or schools is not going to make people safer, and I don’t think it’s a good outcome for law enforcement, either. ... It puts our law enforcement in a tough spot. I think it puts the federal officers in a tough spot. We should not have people going into those types of places. They are very sensitive and have long been considered sensitive sites.”Read statement