Barrett withholds a verdict on whether the Meriden arrest violated state law

Dan BarrettACLU of Connecticut legal director

Mixed or conditional

Barrett said ICE presented an administrative warrant, not a signed judicial warrant. He withheld a conclusion while seeking more records and said lawmakers might need to broaden the protections.

“to figure out if our law was violated here”

Reporting

Open source (opens in a new tab)Connecticut Public examines the Meriden warrant and TRUST ActBarrett statement and administrative-warrant explanation; Stafstrom closing response; New records and Rhonda Hebert response

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

Connecticut Public examines the Meriden warrant and TRUST Act (opens in a new tab)Barrett statement and administrative-warrant explanation; Stafstrom closing response; New records and Rhonda Hebert response

About this source

Reporting includes attributed statements and a chronology of the events.

Before the quotation

Barrett discussed records obtained about the Meriden courthouse arrest.

After the quotation

He sought further evidence about exceptions to the TRUST Act before reaching a conclusion.

How this statement is classified

Mixed or conditional

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

Why this label?

He withholds a verdict on compliance while questioning the warrant's significance.

Recorded on
Published here

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

Looney says FBI and ATF agents "do not wear masks"

Martin Looney

“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

Share or embed this statement

Quote card: Dan Barrett, Barrett withholds a verdict on whether the Meriden arrest violated state lawDownload 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
Barrett withholds a verdict on whether the Meriden arrest violated state law
First published
Last updated
Permalink
https://disputeindex.com/events/4343-barrett-said-ice-presented-an-administrative-warrant-not

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

The Dispute Index. "Barrett withholds a verdict on whether the Meriden arrest violated state law". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/4343-barrett-said-ice-presented-an-administrative-warrant-not