Eve Rogers was found dead in her home in mid-March under suspicious circumstances. Her stepfather, Anthony Federline, has been arrested in connection with her death and charged with sexual assault.

Just days before the child’s body was discovered, though, DCF opened an investigation into the family. The department’s probe came from a referral by police after she left her home without her parents’ knowledge and was found by officers responding to a report of a theft at a nearby Mobil gas station.

News of DCF’s involvement with the family before Rogers’ death comes at a time when the child welfare agency is being heavily scrutinized for its work and questioned for its handling of investigations into a child found dead last year, Jacqueline “Mimi” Torres-García, and a Waterbury man rescued by first responders who alleged he had been held captive and abused for decades.

In all three cases, DCF had records of investigations into the families before the abuse. And all three had been pulled out of public schools by their parents to be homeschooled.

Police taking closer look at electronic devices tied to 12-year-old CT girl found dead in home

DCF Spokesman Peter Yazbak said in a statement that an investigation was underway when Rogers died.

“We can confirm that in March 2026, the agency received a report that Eve had left her home in the early morning hours, without the knowledge or permission of her family, to walk to a nearby store,” he said. “The Department had been investigating these allegations for approximately one week prior to Eve’s untimely death.”

Yazbak said DCF was continuing its joint investigation with law enforcement into her death and the allegations of sexual abuse.

According to arrest warrants, Rogers was found with a blanket covering her body, which was otherwise naked from the waist down in mid-March. There were pills near her and signs of sexual assault. Federline was arrested earlier this month on charges of sexual assault and risk of injury to a child after his DNA matched with DNA collected in a sexual assault kit at the scene, the warrants said.

A week before, Enfield officers were dispatched at 2:38 a.m. on March 11 to a Mobil gas station on Elm Street after police received a call that a white female wearing a pink hoodie had stolen a drink from the Mobil station, according to the police report. Local officers found Rogers walking unaccompanied near the gas station, holding an energy drink.

According to the report, Rogers told police that she took the drink because she “wanted to have fun.” She told police she was walking home, although police noted she was walking in the opposite direction. The police officers who responded to the call said they paid for the drink on Rogers’ behalf and escorted her home.

At the house, police found the front door open and her mother, Melanie Federline, expressed shock at Rogers’ disappearance. The officers referred the case to DCF for follow up. Anthony Federline, who was also a bus driver with Enfield Public Schools and was fired following his arrest, is being held on $1 million bond.

Lawmakers have proposed several bills this session related to the agency that have, in part, been meant to address deficiencies or gaps made public after the recent tragedies.

Lawmakers are considering House Bill 5004 with about two dozen provisions aimed at modest but meaningful reforms at DCF, like providing more grants for families for necessities and the creation of an oversight committee that would make policy recommendations for future reform at the agency. DCF has opposed that provision of the bill, arguing that the agency is already subjected to many layers of oversight.

Acting Child Advocate Christina Ghio said that while that may be the case, such a committee would help move reforms forward by bringing key stakeholders to the table in a systematic way. Her office is investigating the Enfield case, and while she said such a committee would not do the work of looking into individual deaths, it would synthesize the findings of investigations into policy recommendations.

“What is DCF’s quality assurance and how are we measuring whether or not the agency is working in accordance with policies and procedures?” Ghio said of the questions a committee would interrogate. In the Enfield case, Ghio said her office would look to ensure DCF followed procedures like conducting required visits or contacting collateral contacts. When the agency appears to be doing good work and something still goes wrong, the next step is to ask when a change in policy is needed.

House Bill 5468, which has been widely opposed by the homeschooling community, would require that parents show their children are receiving “equivalent instruction” by presenting a portfolio of their work or by taking an exam. The bill would also notify DCF when parents seek to withdraw their children from school. Senate Bill 6 previously contained a provision about homeschooling, but that was quietly removed by lawmakers earlier this week.

Laura Tillman and Ginny Monk are reporters for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

Lamont kicked off a Wednesday afternoon press conference with a tour of the factory at Fascia’s Chocolates in Waterbury, which churns out 100,000 lbs. of chocolatey treats every year.

The governor took the opportunity to tout a proposal he introduced this year to provide tax credits — called “Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangements” or ICHRAs — to small businesses that reimburse employees for purchasing health insurance.

“We’re trying to make sure small businesses also can provide health insurance and little ways that we can make a difference,” Lamont said.

The arrangement would work like this: Businesses that help cover the cost for an employee who pays for their own individual health insurance plan would be eligible for a tax credit of up to $1,000 per employee per year. The credit would be available only to employers with fewer than 50 employees.

Chris DiPentima, president and CEO of Connecticut’s largest trade group, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, said the proposal would provide particular relief for businesses with 10 or fewer employees. He estimated that “tens of thousands” of Connecticut companies could take advantage of the benefit.

The program would cost the state up to $5 million a year beginning in fiscal year 2027, in addition to a one-time cost of $30,000 to establish and administer the program.

Carmen Romeo, president of Fascia’s Chocolates, said he, like many small business owners, has struggled for years with how to provide health insurance for his employees as the cost of coverage continues to rise.

Years ago, the business offered its employees coverage through a small group plan. As premiums increased, many of Romeo’s employees couldn’t afford the coverage, he said. Eventually, Fascia’s insurer dropped them because there weren’t enough people on the plan. Now, it’s up to each of Romeo’s employees to figure out how to get coverage.

“We’re committed to our employees. Anything we can do to help them, we’re going to. And these ICHRAs are a good way to help,” Romeo said.

The bill passed the Human Services Committee in March. Committee co-Chair Matt Lesser, D-Middletown, who often criticizes the governor for underfunding health policy issues, called the tax credits “a smart idea” that could save small businesses money “right away.”

The bill now heads to the legislature’s Finance Committee before going to the House for a vote. Lamont said he’s heard strong support for the plan in the legislature.

Earlier this week, another proposal geared towards helping small businesses provide employees with coverage, failed to pass the Appropriations Committee.

The bill, HB 5378, sought to permit the establishment of “multiple employer welfare arrangements” or “MEWAs.” MEWAs — also referred to as “association health plans” — allow for two or more employers to pool resources in order to pay for their employees’ health insurance.

Supporters said the plans offer small businesses a much needed, cost-effective way to provide health coverage to their employees. But, several patient advocacy groups said the savings would come at the expense of patient protections. MEWAs use medical underwriting, which could lead to higher costs if employees have complicated medical histories or require expensive care.

DiPentima said the industry would continue to fight for association health plans in Connecticut. But establishing ICHRAs would provide small businesses with another tool in the meantime, he said.

“Today, our businesses in Connecticut don’t need perfection. They just want progress. And this bill today is real progress to addressing the health care affordability issue,” DiPentima said.

Katy Golvala is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

But the GOP plan relies on shifting hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to hospitals outside the spending cap and on Connecticut winning a legal battle against New York over work-from-home-related income tax receipts. It also would remove undocumented residents from state-funded health insurance programs and delay hiring for many state agencies.

Republicans hope Gov. Ned Lamont and his fellow Democrats in House and Senate majorities will incorporate elements of their plan in the final budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year, which is under negotiation and which leaders hope to adopt before the regular General Assembly session closes May 6.

“Our plan keeps us under the spending cap and puts real money back in people’s pockets, whether through their property tax bills or their insurance premiums,” said House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora of North Branford.

Republicans weren’t interested in Lamont’s proposed tax rebate, which would divide $500 million among most residents — $200 per person in most cases — once in late October.

Republicans have called the Democratic governor’s proposal a political stunt, noting the rebate would be delivered days before voters must decide whether to reelect Lamont to a third term.

“We’re not talking about a handout because we’re running in November,” Rep. Joe Polletta of Watertown, ranking House Republican on the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, said during a mid-morning press conference, adding that residents need lasting relief to combat Connecticut’s high cost of living. “We’re talking about something that people can look to two, three, four, five, 10 years down the line,” he said.

Relief plan is centered on CT income tax

The linchpin of the House GOP relief plan is a $285 million state income tax cut aimed at Connecticut’s middle class.

Republicans would increase an existing credit that offsets a portion of municipal property tax bills from $300 to $650 and broaden eligibility. Individuals earning more than $49,500 and couples topping $70,500 can receive a partial credit at most, while those exceeding $109,500 and $130,500 are ineligible for any relief, according to current law.

The House GOP plan would begin phasing down the credit once earnings for individuals surpass $70,000 and couples top $100,000 and would not cut off eligibility until their incomes exceed $130,000 and $200,000, respectively.

The caucus also would deliver another $82 million in annual relief by creating a new exemption for tips earnings and expanding the state’s partial tax exemption on Social Security income to a full exclusion.

Other components of the House Republican relief package include:

• Raising the sales price from $50,000 to $75,000 for vehicles subject to Connecticut’s luxury sales tax rate, which is 7.75% rather than the base rate of 6.35%. This would save consumers about $20 million per year, according to the caucus.

• Exempting children’s clothing from the sales tax, which would save shoppers about $15 million annually.

• And eliminating fees of certain occupational licenses, which would save applicants about $16 million.

“Republicans are the only ones offering significant and permanent tax relief,” Senate Republican Leader Stephen Harding of Brookfield said after his House colleagues released their plan. “Our ideas can save working families thousands of dollars a year, every year.”

To afford this tax relief, the House GOP plan needs Connecticut to reclaim about $340 million per year in state income tax payments that residents here currently make to New York.

The Empire State demands income tax from Connecticut residents who work remotely from home for New York-based employers. Growing technology coupled with the coronavirus pandemic outbreak in 2020 led to a huge explosion in remote work, and New York officials have said it’s unfair for the state that supports so many large employers, and so many jobs, to lose the tax revenue.

Connecticut offers a credit so an estimated 80,000 of its residents in this situation don’t have to pay taxes to two states.

House Republicans want to repeal that credit, forcing a legal showdown in federal court. But some state officials say that could ultimately go to the U.S. Supreme Court and take years to resolve.

Candelora acknowledged there could be delays and there’s no guarantee the state could recoup the full $340 million. But the state has $4.3 billion in its rainy day fund, which could cover any budget caps while the legal battle plays out, the minority leader said, adding Connecticut must try to force a resolution.

But Lamont’s budget spokesman, Chris Collibee, said the GOP plan “relies on unrealistic revenue assumptions and savings estimates. Simply put, it does not present a truly balanced budget. … The Lamont administration remains committed to working with legislative leaders to develop responsible budget adjustments that deliver meaningful relief to residents, schools and municipalities while continuing to protect our most vulnerable populations.

Boosting aid to cities and towns

But House Republicans said their plan to improve affordability doesn’t hinge solely on state taxes.

Their budget also would boost education aid to cities and towns by $365 million per year, which would ease burdens on local property taxpayers to support their schools.

“Connecticut is underfunding education, using a fatally flawed formula, which has not kept up with what it actually costs to educate a child, and towns are left making up the difference,” said Rep. Tammy Nuccio of Tolland, ranking House Republican on the Appropriations Committee.

To help pay for this $365 million increase, though, the House Republican budget would cut the Education Cost Sharing grant program modestly, by about $29 million. Nuccio said the budget would reduce payments to communities that host magnet, vocational-agriculture and charter schools. In some cases, these cities and towns effectively receive a double payment per student, as if the child were attending both a traditional school and a specialty school at the same time, she said.

House Republicans also would help pay for more aid to schools by reducing planned spending for “earmarks” — pet projects in legislators’ home districts —  by $12 million and by removing undocumented residents from state-funded health insurance programs to save $61 million.

Democratic legislative leaders have pledged to increase school aid by $150 million or more next fiscal year.

“It is good to see that we are on a similar page with our House Republican colleagues in sending more money to local schools and addressing the affordability crisis, which continues to be exacerbated by President [Donald] Trump,” House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, said Tuesday afternoon. “I’m sure I will have a number of productive conversations in the coming weeks with Rep. Candelora and his budget team.”

But Nuccio noted Democrats have been drawing the extra funds for schools from reserves outside of the formal budget and haven’t demonstrated how they would continue that aid year after year.

Republicans also hope to stem rising premiums by moving about $20 million from the state budget’s Insurance Fund — which is supported with an assessment on insurance companies and health care centers — to the General Fund, which receives most state tax and fee receipts.

Republicans would work around spending cap, delay hiring

Republicans, though, have their own challenges making the math work.

The House GOP budget would spend about $800 million less than what Lamont proposed for the fiscal year that begins July 1 and almost $1.1 billion less than what the Democratic-controlled Appropriations Committee proposed.

More importantly, House Republicans say, their plan falls $167 million under the spending cap that keeps overall budget growth in line with household income and inflation.

But to get there, the GOP had to take a step for which it’s criticized Lamont and Democratic legislators for taking in the past: shifting spending outside of the formal budget, and therefore outside of cap limits.

Connecticut has a taxing arrangement with its hospitals that involves collecting from and returning to hospitals hundreds of millions of dollars as part of a complicated plan to qualify for extra Medicaid funding from Washington.

The House GOP plan would move roughly $700 million in payments to hospitals outside of the formal budget and spending cap system, Nuccio said, adding, “I know … we’re always yelling, ‘You can’t take things off budget.’”

But the Tolland lawmaker added that’s like other steps Connecticut long has employed to ensure the cap doesn’t effectively block it from accepting federal aid.

Since 2013, Connecticut has kept the local dollars it spends on Medicaid within its budget. But the federal money spent on Medicaid programs in the state is spent and tracked outside of the budget, so it doesn’t count against cap limits.

Republicans also to save $150 million next fiscal year by delaying allowable new hires throughout the fiscal year.

The state currently has about 2,600 authorized but unfilled positions, Nuccio said. And in recent years, many authorized posts have remained vacant, she said, adding it’s safe to assume many could remain vacant, at least for a portion of the next 12-month budget cycle.

It was not immediately clear from the proceedings that the homeschooling language had been removed from Senate Bill 6. Appropriations co-Chair Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, mentioned that “Section 5” of the bill had been deleted but did not say what it included. It was the section on homeschooling.

There was no discussion in committee before members voted, sending the bill to the Senate.

To remove a child from public school in Connecticut, parents currently need only to inform their school district in writing. From that point on, they have no legally mandated engagement with the state.

Critics say abusive parents can take advantage of this lack of oversight, as in the case of 11-year-old Jacqueline “Mimi” Torres-Garcia, whose body was discovered last year.

Under the now-deleted Section 5 of S.B. 6, the Connecticut State Department of Education would notify the Department of Children and Families whenever a parent communicates their intent to homeschool a child. DCF would then check for any open cases with the child in question. This, proponents said, would flag cases where parents might be removing children from school for malicious reasons while sparing those who have done nothing wrong.

But that effort hit an early snag when CSDE raised concerns the bill might violate the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, commonly known as FERPA. During a public hearing, Education Commissioner Charlene Russell-Tucker said FERPA prohibited her department from disclosing students’ information in the way S.B. 6 would require.

If the bill were to become law, Russell-Tucker warned, the state could lose millions of dollars of federal education funding. A subsequent review from the Office of Fiscal Analysis affirmed those concerns.

Notably, neither Russell-Tucker nor the OFA expressed those same reservations about House Bill 5468, which would establish similar regulations for homeschooling. That bill is still in play; Whether it survives the Appropriations Committee — and in what form — remains to be seen. It squeaked through the Education Committee on a vote of 26-20, with a handful of Democrats joining all the committee’s Republican members in voting “No” and at least one lawmaker changing from “No” to “Yes” before voting closed.

Homeschooling advocates have been vehement in their opposition to both bills, which they say unfairly target a population that has done nothing wrong. Thousands submitted written opposition earlier in the year, with hundreds more coming to the statehouse to voice their concerns during a public hearing. Homeschooled children told lawmakers about achievements far outpacing what most of their public school peers are doing, and many expressed fear of the bullying in the public school system.

They drastically outnumbered supporters of the legislation, which included Child Advocate Christina Ghio and one former homeschooler who said she had previously been made to testify in opposition of regulation by abusive parents.

Some Republican lawmakers have suggested the real way to prevent cases like Torres-Garcia’s is to reform DCF. Others, like Rep. Lezlye Zupkus of Prospect, have expressed doubt that any law could prevent parents with ill intent from harming their kids.

The Connecticut Mirror reached out to multiple legislative leaders on the Education and Appropriations Committees for comment. Education Committee co-Chair Rep. Jennifer Leeper, D-Fairfield, said she could not comment on what was a Senate decision to remove Section 5 from S.B. 6. The others did not respond time for publication.

CT Mirror reporters Laura Tillman and Ginny Monk contributed to this story.

Theo Peck-Suzuki is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

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

After more than four hours of debate, the Senate voted 24-10 on strict party lines with Democrats in favor and Republicans against. Two senators were absent from the final vote at about 7:30 p.m.

Senate Democrats who wrote the bill have blasted the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE, and President Donald Trump’s administration as citizens have been detained in Connecticut and across the nation.

Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, a liberal Democrat from New Haven, said that Connecticut residents have been “appalled” by the “abuses committed by ICE.” As a result, the caucus crafted the 40-page Senate Bill 397 with the assistance of Gov. Ned Lamont and state Attorney General William Tong.

“This is our response,” Looney declared Tuesday. “ICE agents have been operating like vigilantes in Connecticut and elsewhere. … We believe ICE agents are not well-trained.”

Looney describes the legislation as “the most consequential bill” of the 2026 legislative session so far.

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

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.

Looney and other senators said they fully expect the federal government to challenge Connecticut’s bill under the Supremacy Clause, which states that laws of the federal government supersede laws passed by the states. Looney and others predicted that Connecticut will be on solid legal ground, but Republicans said that they believe that the bill, if signed into law, will be overturned in the future in the courts.

But Senate Republican leader Stephen Harding of Brookfield said that there are “barrels of case law” in favor of overturning the legislation. After the smoke clears and the debate ends, Harding said, “All we’re left with is another anti-cop bill from Hartford.”

Sen. Rob Sampson, one of the legislature’s most conservative members, blasted the bill as “extremely offensive” in its treatment of law enforcement.

“I would call it a Trojan horse, anti-police bill,” Sampson said on the Senate floor. “It cannot be overstated just how important they are to maintaining law and order. … Most of this bill is patently unconstitutional. … Immigration policy falls under the federal government. It’s the United States, not the state of Connecticut, that makes immigration policy.”

He questioned the title of the bill, “An Act Concerning Democracy and Government Accountability,” that he said was improperly named.

“I’m the government accountability guy,” Sampson said. “I came here to hold this place accountable. … This is not about accountability.”

Rejecting the notion that ICE agents are “tremendous villains,” Sampson said, “Most of them are doing a very good job.”

Multi-faceted bill

Among other things, the bill creates a new, private right of action that would allow citizens to file civil lawsuits against ICE agents in court.

“We want to make sure it doesn’t happen here,” said Sen. Gary Winfield, a New Haven Democrat who co-chairs the legislature’s judiciary committee. “When they have violated someone’s rights, that’s not part of their job. … I say, when that happens, there should be a way to deal with that. … It is not their job to violate the rights of anyone. … The point of this is to protect people. It’s not a violation of the Supremacy Clause for a number of reasons. The supreme law of this land is the Constitution of the United States.”

After Sampson spoke on the Senate floor for more than 75 minutes, Winfield said that 14% of the people that ICE dealt with were criminals despite Trump officials making it seem like they were dealing with criminals 100% of the time.

“I don’t care about Donald Trump. In a couple of years, he will be gone,” Winfield said. “What are we trying to protect here, I think it should be the citizens of the state of Connecticut.”

Sen. John Kissel of Enfield, who serves as the ranking Senate Republican on the legislature’s judiciary committee, opposed the bill for multiple reasons.

“It impedes the ability of the federal government to perform its functions,” Kissel said, naming the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, ATF, Department of Justice, and the Secret Service. “Those are the preeminent law enforcement agencies that the federal government has. … This bill is drafted in a way that is extremely broad. … When it comes to federal agencies, it’s outside our wheelhouse. … As soon as it’s challenged in the courts, it will be struck down.”

The bill blocks all law enforcement officers — at the local, state and federal levels — from wearing masks. The measure has some exceptions, such as undercover operations, SCUBA teams, bomb squads, and SWAT teams, but broadly bans masks. The officers also must wear a visible name tag or a badge as some citizens have complained that they have had trouble identifying ICE agents.

Winfield said that ICE agents should not be allowed to cover up their name tags.

“We don’t have secret police in the United States of America,” Winfield said.

Sen. Herron Gaston, a Bridgeport Democrat, said that ICE has been operating under “an unhinged, rogue, federal administration.”

Sen. Ryan Fazio, a Greenwich Republican who is running for governor, said the bill was pushing “an ideological, anti-public safety immigrant enforcement system” that will undermine public safety.

The bill also mentions “protected areas,” which limits locations where people can be arrested by ICE agents. That includes schools, churches, synagogues, mosques, crisis centers, shelters, food banks, and day care centers, among others.

The bill also states that automated license plate reader systems should not be abused. Data obtained from the license plates cannot be held for more than 21 days unless there is an active criminal investigation, officials said.

“License plate data cannot be used to determine race/ethnicity; any activity protected under the First Amendment; suspected immigration status; and reproductive health care or gender affirming care,” Democrats said.

The measure also states that a license plate reader cannot be placed near abortion clinics so that patients cannot be followed in those areas.

A summary by the legislature’s nonpartisan research office says that federal law enforcement agencies will be liable “when their officers interfere with someone taking a photo, digital still, or video of them or another officer performing their duties; makes an immunity defense unavailable in a civil liability action for an intentional tort committed while interfering with the taking of the photo, digital still, or video.”

Duff said that Republicans should have supported the bill to show their independence from Trump.

“Now, it’s gut-check time for the Senate Republican MAGA caucus,” Duff said. “Where do they stand? With Donald Trump and his modern-day brownshirts? Or with the people of Connecticut?”

But Sampson said that the bill, written by Democrats, was highly political.

“It is a distraction nonetheless,” Sampson said. “I don’t need a lecture from the majority about civil rights. … I believe very strongly in civil liberties, the rule of law, due process. … We do not have any convictions [in Minneapolis]. … I don’t want to bring politics into this room. … I do not believe in weaponizing civil rights law, like this bill does.”

Sampson added, “It’s not a legitimate policy statement. It’s a political statement. … People that are committing wrongdoing … should be held accountable. Period. End of story. Nobody wants a king.”

He added, “You cannot rewrite federal law. I’m sorry you didn’t like the last federal election. … This is a political attempt to undermine policy.”

Public Citizen, an advocacy group founded by Connecticut native Ralph Nader, has 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.”

The vote follows the announcement Monday of a federal lawsuit brought by the Trump administration against Gov. Ned Lamont, the state of Connecticut, the city of New Haven and its Mayor Justin Elicker over “sanctuary” policies and the state’s Trust Act, which limits police cooperation with ICE agents.

Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com 

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District of Connecticut, argues that the state’s “sanctuary policies” protect criminals from being picked up by federal law enforcement. The lawsuit specifically mentions Connecticut’s Trust Act, which regulates how state and local law enforcement agents can coordinate with federal immigration agents.

The Trust Act generally prohibits Connecticut law enforcement from arresting someone solely on the basis of a detainer — a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that police hold a person for up to 48 hours so federal agents can pick them up — with some exceptions.

Local law enforcement and correction officials in Connecticut may only comply with a federal detainer request if ICE presents a judicial warrant, if the person is on a terrorist watch list or if the person in their custody has been convicted or pleaded guilty to a class A or B felony — crimes like murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery and first-degree manslaughter.

Last year, lawmakers modified the Trust Act to allow individuals to sue over alleged violations of the law; it also expanded the situations in which officials can comply with federal immigration detainers — and not be subject to such litigation. Sexual assault, injury or risk of injury to a child, strangulation, burglary with a firearm, possessing child sexual abuse material, enticing or sexually exploiting a minor and violating a protective order are now crimes that allow Connecticut law enforcement to hand someone over to ICE.

“The end of the Trust Act … is to intentionally obstruct federal law enforcement and thwart the constitutional obligation of the President of the United States to take care that the immigration laws enacted by Congress are enforced,” the lawsuit reads. “Such blatant disregard for federal laws that have been on the books for decades is not merely a political disagreement or passive abstention; it is deliberate, disruptive action that jeopardizes the public safety of all Americans.”

The lawsuit argues that the Trust Act violates the Supremacy Clause to the U.S. Constitution, which says when state and federal laws clash, federal laws take precedence.

“The United States has well-established, preeminent, and preemptive authority to regulate immigration matters,” the lawsuit stated.

The department also argued that the Trust Act has allowed people who have committed crimes to be released into Connecticut rather than deported from the U.S. The complaint laid out the example of Sanjay Sivan Walsh, who was convicted of two counts of second-degree sexual assault in 2023 and released on probation after 21 months. ERO Boston acting Field Office Director Patricia H. Hyde said that the Connecticut Department of Correction refused to honor a federal immigration detainer, instead releasing Walsh from custody. Federal immigration authorities arrested Walsh, a native of Jamaica, in August 2025.

According to the lawsuit, Connecticut has honored less than 20% of the civil immigration detainers issued by the federal government since 2020.

Attorney General William Tong said in a statement that Connecticut was a “sovereign state” and has the right to pass the Trust Act, which was intended to “prioritize public safety and ensure that all people can trust and rely on law enforcement to keep us safe.”

“It is a shame that the President and the Department of Justice are not focused on public safety but are wasting federal resources on attacking Connecticut with a baseless lawsuit that has no foundation in law or fact,” Tong said. “Connecticut is not a ‘sanctuary’ state, whatever that means. This term is meaningless and has no basis in Connecticut law.”

The DOJ’s lawsuit also took issue with an executive order issued by New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker in 2020, which prohibits city employees from divulging information about a resident’s immigration status or using city resources to aid “in the investigation or enforcement of any federal program.”

“In rejecting congressionally authorized means of enforcing federal immigration law, including detainers and administrative warrants, the Executive Order unlawfully regulates the Federal Government,” the DOJ lawsuit alleged. “By prohibiting information sharing with federal immigration authorities in most instances, the Executive Order acts to single out federal immigration authorities for disfavored treatment and frustrates the system of cooperation contemplated by federal law.”

During a press conference on Tuesday, Elicker said the lawsuit quoted the executive order in a way that was “misleading,” leaving out clarifying language. He said the claims that the order violated federal law were “blanketly untrue.”

“The plain fact is, our employees are abiding by both city, state and federal law with the executive order that we have, and we’ll continue to do that,” Elicker said.

Elicker said city employees do not ask people’s immigration status because “that is the federal government’s job.” He noted that it was important for people to feel comfortable contacting the police and accessing city resources in order to keep the community safe.

“We’re proud to be a welcoming city and to welcome immigrants. If people want to be a productive part of our community, we welcome people, period,” Elicker said. He added that they planned to fight the lawsuit “with all we’ve got.”

Emilia Otte is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

Dawn La Valle, the director of the Division of Library Development, said in an email that the committee has restored $140,000 for the 50-year-old borrowIT CT program in its budget proposal.

“We are cautiously optimistic that borrowIT CT will be funded at [the] current level,’’ she said.

In February, Gov. Ned Lamont had proposed the $140,000, or 20%, cut in the program’s budget of about $700,000 for 2027, and library advocates have been lobbying for its restoration since then. The proposed cut caused concern that some libraries would drop out of the program if they determined that the reimbursement was not worth the cost of lending materials, La Valle said.

“I can definitely foresee that happening,” La Valle said. “Some libraries might just not see the purpose if the reimbursement funds decrease.”

Some residents have taken the program for granted, she said, and aren’t aware of the funding mechanism.

“Most residents just know that they can take their library card and go use it at another library,” La Valle said. “A lot of them do not know this program even exists.”

The program, established in 1974 and originally known as Connecticard, has enabled libraries to loan more than 156 million items over the past 50 years, according to data from the state. A total of 191 public libraries participate in borrowIT CT.

When the Willington Public Library doesn’t have a particular book available, library director Steve Osier encourages patrons to check it out from another library through borrowIT CT.

When a library loans out materials to non-residents, the state library then reimburses it 14 cents per transaction. The library can then use the funds to buy more books or supplies. Lamont’s proposed cut would have dropped the reimbursement rate to less than 10 cents, La Valle said.

Osier said patrons at his library borrowed 6,683 items from other libraries in 2025, about twice the number of books patrons from other towns borrowed from Willington.

“We can get the big hits and the bestsellers, but we can’t always get everything,” Osier said.

During fiscal year 2025, Connecticut libraries loaned more than 2.5 million items to non-residents through the program, according to data from the state.

While the reimbursement amount may seem small, it adds up quickly for the libraries that lend thousands of materials each year. If libraries had to purchase every item that their residents borrowed through the program, it would cost more than $35 million annually, according to data from the state library

This program is important for libraries in rural towns where their library collections are significantly smaller than those of larger towns and cities. Osier mentioned this concern in his written testimony to the General Assembly.

“A funding reduction of this size risks discouraging libraries from participating, weakening resource sharing statewide and reducing access for patrons—particularly those in communities with fewer local resources,” Osier wrote.

Funding for the program has already declined over time. BorrowIT CT’s current funding level is just slightly over half of what it was in 2008, including inflation, according to data from the state.

Erin Dummeyer, the president of the Connecticut Library Association and director of the Mark Twain Library in Redding, said that Connecticut already ranks low in state funding for public libraries compared to other states.

Dummeyer said funding has remained flat in recent years even as the costs of books and other materials has increased, putting extra strain on the library budgets. She added that despite these challenges, demand for borrowIT CT has remained strong and the reimbursement money allows libraries to add services they otherwise could not afford.

“I heard of one library that used the reimbursement funds to fund a staff position before town funding kicked in and it allowed that person to be hired earlier,” Dummeyer said.

As lawmakers continue to debate the proposed state budget, funding for the program remains unclear.

“I don’t see why we should be cutting money from the program because in the scheme of things, it’s not a lot of money relative to the big state budget,” State Sen. Jeff Gordon, R-Woodstock, said. “I do support people being able to access their libraries including libraries in various towns and I don’t see why we should limit that.”

Portion of CT roadway to close tomorrow for work on library. What to know

Leigh Hoadley, a part-time staff member at the Willington library who lives in Mansfield, said the program makes it more convenient to check out books for herself and her three children in Willington as a non-resident.

“They love reading,” Hoadley said. “It opens up a magical world to them every time they start a book.”

Nicole Caruso is majoring in journalism and English at the University of Connecticut. This story is republished via CT Community News, a service of the Connecticut Student Journalism Collaborative, an organization sponsored by journalism departments at college and university campuses across the state.

Hershman has been serving in the role on an interim basis since December. Senators unanimously approved his appointment last week. The confirmation requires a majority vote in either the Senate or House.

Hershman was most recently the CEO of Immigrant Life Insurance Company of America.

“This confirmation represents an important milestone, and I am grateful for the trust placed in me,” Hershman said in a statement Friday. “Each day reinforces how essential our work is to Connecticut residents and businesses.”

From 2019 to 2022, Hershman was deputy commissioner and chief operating officer of Connecticut’s insurance department, where he led projects that explored AI’s impact on insurance and championed data-driven regulatory modernization. Before that, he practiced law with a focus on complex business planning and litigation, officials said. He lives in Guilford.

“Focusing on consumer protection is the top priority of the insurance commissioner; consumer protection from the top down to the bottom will be my No. 1 priority,” he told The Connecticut Mirror in a November interview.

“Having innovation in [insurance], trying to bring more opportunity for consumers, will help mitigate some of the cost issues that exist. Affordability is a huge issue in the state of Connecticut when it comes to health insurance, homeowners’ insurance — every insurance is expensive — and I’m going to do my very best to try to alleviate the affordability issue in Connecticut.”

Hershman succeeded Insurance Commissioner Andrew Mais, who in November announced his retirement after nearly seven years leading the department.

“Josh Hershman’s experience and broad understanding of the insurance industry and the regulatory framework that it operates within will serve him well as commissioner,” Gov. Ned Lamont said last fall. “I appreciate him for agreeing to serve in this leadership role.”

Jenna Carlesso is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

Rep. Michael DiGiovancarlo, a Waterbury Democrat, and Rep. Greg Howard, a Stonington Republican, are the only two state lawmakers currently serving in law enforcement.

Both warn that the profession is in crisis. Connecticut police officers face increasing pressure and scrutiny, making recruitment and retainment more difficult and “demoralizing the profession,” the pair told the Courant at the Capitol in a recent interview.

DiGiovancarlo and Howard point to the 2020 police accountability law passed in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death as a turning point, but say that new expectations have compounded the pressure: officers are now expected to fulfill the role of a mental health crisis counselor and a pastor on top of their regular duties. The change is turning people away from the profession, DiGiovancarlo and Howard said.

“They expect us to be robots with no feelings and to never make a mistake,” said DiGiovancarlo. “You’re asked to do 10 to 20 more things that policing didn’t have to do 40 to 50 years ago.”

Elected to the House in 2020, DiGiovancarlo, a police officer with Waterbury Police, and Howard, a detective in the Stonington Police Department, said they joined the legislature, hoping to bring real-life experience in law enforcement to inform the work of crafting laws. Howard and DiGiovancarlo both serve on the Public Safety and Security Committee while Howard also serves on the Judiciary Committee.

Howard said police often feel they are under attack and that he and DiGiovancarlo are trying to bring a human face to the profession.

“So when our colleagues get into a committee and they say, ‘the police,’ they’re thinking Mike and Greg, two people who they know, right? So that’s a big difference, because now they’re adding in a human factor,” he said.

Although they are from different sides of the aisle, one representing an urban community and the other a shoreline town, the two legislators said they became instant friends with a shared bond of law enforcement.

Patrick Boyd, a Pomfret Democrat and chair of the Public Safety and Security Committee, said the two lawmakers’ experience and insight are valuable in working on law enforcement policy.

“They’re able to tie the relevancy of an issue, not the rumor of an issue,” Boyd said. “We have a reputation in our committee of being extremely bipartisan and operating as a team. We move a lot of bills without a lot of opposition because we put in the time and everybody’s got a seat at the table. And I think the policy is better because of it.”

He said the committee has been a solid team because members trust one another and do not create policies based on emotion.

Both Howard and DiGiovancarlo are hopeful that the state is beginning to address the recruitment and retention issue facing police departments.

Gov. Ned Lamont is proposing two bill amendments aimed at recruiting more police and firefighters in the state by making home purchases and college more affordable for them.

One of the proposed amendments to House Bill 5046, An Act Supporting Firefighter and Police Officer Recruitment and Retention, would develop a mortgage assistance program for police officers and members of career or volunteer fire departments. The other would allow those who put in five or more years of service to seek a waiver of tuition and fees at public colleges and universities.

Howard said Connecticut is different from other states in reducing qualified immunity for police, and that deters people from entering the profession.

He said if the state were to reinstate interlocutory appeal, which would allow an officer to appeal to a higher court while a case is still pending in a lower court, it would help to boost morale in the profession.

A tough profession that takes a toll

Howard joined the police force in 2002, saying that he did not choose policing but that it chose him.

When he was 14 he began volunteering with Westerly Ambulance in Westerly, Rhode Island. At 18 he became an EMT and served 27 years in EMS simultaneous to his police career. He has served as a patrolman, field training officer, K-9 handler and now detective.

Reflecting on his career, Howard, 45, said the difficult and tragic things he has seen have impacted his life. He recounted one night when his mother told his wife: ‘I wish you knew Greg before he was a cop.’”

“And that cut me so deep because what my mother said inadvertently was that police work has changed me and that made me do a lot of self reflecting,” he said.

Now, Howard said, he will not sit in a restaurant unless his back is to the wall.

“I don’t go into any place unless I know there’s a way out other than the one I came in,” he said. “If I am in a Walmart and I can’t account for everybody’s hands, I have to go outside. I can’t do it.”

“When you do police work and you live in these harsh realities, the things that upset you are so minimal and people around you seem to think you don’t care.

“It’s not that you don’t care,” he said. “It’s that you cannot get upset over every little thing or you’ll lose your mind. You know what matters to me? It’s when I’m sitting on a front porch telling somebody a kid died in a car crash. That’s a real problem. Not the fact that my brother was 15 minutes late to Easter.”

DiGiovancarlo, 55, who joined the Waterbury Police Department in 2006, agreed, saying policing changes your view on things.

“I think getting older has matured me and calmed me down,” he said. “But I think you know what used to make you fly off the handle, the things you thought were such big problems may not be as big.”

Howard said it is easy for people to second guess the split-second decisions police officers must make under extreme stress.

Each said the public has misconceptions about police. DiGiovancarlo said some think that officers are trying to meet a quota.

“There is no such thing as a quota in Waterbury,” he said.

Howard said some people believe that police have a racial agenda and they don’t.

“You see, the public sees less than one half of 1% of what we do but to them that’s all we do because that’s all they see,” he said. “We send our police officers into the worst 10 minutes of everybody’s day, all day, every day. We run to the things that most people run from.”

A knowledge of law enforcement legislation

Howard and DiGiovancarlo said their knowledge of the profession has given them a unique perspective on legislation concerning public safety.

For example, in 2023, lawmakers were debating a bill to designate several secondary violations that people could not be pulled over for.

That bill was revised to allow for police to still “pull people over for violations while also fine tuning some of the broad statutes such as fixing marker plates and obstruction of a windshield to make sure people weren’t being pulled over for foolish reasons,” Howard said.

In another bill, in 2021, the legislators helped to work on a law, known as the Clean Slate, which established “a process to erase records of most misdemeanor convictions and certain felony convictions after a specified period following the person’s most recent conviction,” according to an analysis of the bill.

This was one of the few bills the two legislators were divided on, with Howard voting against and DiGiovancarlo for the measure. DiGiovancarlo gave the example of a 19-year-old son who punches somebody in the face over a fight over a girl and that it is now on his record for the rest of his life.

“I believe if you stay out of trouble for eight years after you commit that misdemeanor it should fall off your record,” he said. “I believe good behavior should be rewarded.”

By comparison, Howard said he had reservations about the bill because “each individual’s circumstances should be independently reviewed before you erase records.”

And in 2021, there was legislation that prohibited police officers from pulling someone over for smoking marijuana while driving. Howard and DiGiovancarlo worked to reverse that legislation.

Future bills

Howard and DiGiovancarlo expressed reservations about a bill that would “allow the state to sue federal law enforcement agents for violating citizens’ rights and limit the locations where officers can conduct immigration enforcement,” according to the CT Mirror.

The two were aligned in voting against the Trust Act, which blocks local police from making an arrest based only on a request from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.

Howard said he has seen tactics of ICE that he doesn’t agree with.

“I mean grabbing a protester and throwing an old lady — never acceptable in my opinion. But also I have to acknowledge the fact that they’re meeting resistance all day, every day. The laws we continue to pass here are putting thousands of cops in this state in a very precarious situation of either violating federal law or state law,” he said.

Reporting from Courant reporter Justin Muszynski is included in this article.

But municipal advocates urged Gov. Ned Lamont and the General Assembly Wednesday to reverse that trend, noting that while budget caps have kept state coffers flush, inadequate aid has left many communities struggling.

“It was a great injustice,” New London Mayor Michael Passero, president of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, said during a morning press conference at the Capitol.

“Revenues which were intended for municipalities — especially municipalities like mine — started to be diverted [in 2002] because of the state’s own fiscal woes,” he added. “That diversion has continued to this day, even though the state is much more healthier, financially.”

Technically, the General Fund for this year’s $27.2 billion state budget is projected to be $6 million in deficit, a miniscule shortfall that represents 1/40^th of 1% of spending.

But that doesn’t include more than $1.8 billion in income and business tax receipts that a special savings program withholds from the budget.

Those unspent dollars are more than 30 times the $52.5 million in casino revenues the state will share with its 169 cities and towns this budget cycle.

That $52.5 million is roughly 14% of the $365 million in video slot revenues the state will receive this fiscal year from tribal casinos through an arrangement that dates to the early 1990s.

Municipal advocates called Wednesday for a 50-50 split from now on, saying it would help restore towns to the level of support they received decades ago.

Weicker secured CT’s share of casino revenues

Connecticut’s first casino opened in 1992 when the Mashantucket Pequot tribe, having received federal recognition, opened Foxwoods on its sovereign land, located near the Ledyard-North Stonington border in New London County.

That casino originally opened only with table games.

It added the extremely popular video slot machines one year later when then-Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. negotiated a compact that ended the state’s legal objections to the game.

In return, the tribe has given Connecticut 25% of receipts from the video slots, an agreement that the Mohegan tribe agreed to follow when it opened the Mohegan Sun in 1996 on sovereign land within the boundaries of Montville.

Weicker, an opponent of casino gambling, argued that gaming centers would greatly increase demand for social programs, public safety, affordable housing and other services provided chiefly by municipalities, which should therefore get most of the state’s share of gaming revenues.

When state lawmakers crafted a budget for the 1993-94 fiscal year, they anticipated $113 million from the recently opened Foxwoods and pledged 78% of the funds, $88.1 million, to communities, according to state budget records.

Based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator, that aid would be worth almost $200 million now.

By 2000, the state’s share of revenues topped $300 million, and lawmakers increased the annual amount sent to communities to $135 million — but that didn’t last for long.

Just one year later, worsening state finances prompted legislators to cut towns’ share to $127.4 million.  And by 2003, as Connecticut moved out of recession, the portion was down to $77.5 million.

It would climb back to about $85 million in 2004 and remain close to that level until the next recession. But in the 2009-10 fiscal year it would hit a new low, reduced to $61.7 million, or about 16% of the $384 million Connecticut was set to receive from casinos.

The toll of that erosion has been felt by many cities and towns, municipal leaders say.

In New London, where 20% of families live in poverty, aid from all state grants represented 41% of the city’s revenues in 2017 but 33% now.

Towns face an uphill battle in pursuit of casino funds

But it remains uncertain whether towns will receive a greater share of casino receipts. That’s because there are many other initiatives, including some that also would help towns, fighting for a share of Connecticut’s flush coffers.

Lamont, who is seeking reelection this November for a third term, wants to spend $500 million on a one-time $200-per-person tax rebate to be paid out in late October.

Majority Democrats in the House and Senate still hope to find hundreds of millions of dollars to expand a $300 million initiative last June to increase affordable child care.

And many lawmakers also want to increase education aid to local school districts by $150 million or more next fiscal year.

Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, whose southeastern Connecticut district includes many communities around the Foxwoods Resort Casino and the Mohegan Sun, said lawmakers’ focus on boosting local aid for K-12 schools is necessary and appropriate. But Osten, a former first selectwoman, said cities and towns have pressing general government needs outside education that require state assistance as well.

“If we’re really going to address property tax reform, we have to address both sides of the ledger,” she said. Casinos have brought many jobs to Connecticut, but the state has a responsibility to help communities provide the support services that go along with this economic activity, Osten added.

Sen. Heather Somers, R-Groton, a former mayor of her home community, also supports giving communities half of annual casino revenues.

“This is a promise that was made to our municipalities when we first entered the agreement with the two tribal nations, and it is a promise that has not been honored,” she said. “For me, this is really about fairness.”

But state government is grappling with some big fiscal challenges, both new and old.

Despite generating huge annual surpluses since 2017, about $1.8 billion to $1.9 billion on average, Connecticut hasn’t used those dollars to expand programs but rather to pay down one of the largest pension debt burdens in the nation. And it entered this fiscal year still owing a hefty $33.5 billion, according to Lamont’s budget office.

Connecticut also expects to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Medicaid assistance starting next fiscal year. Congress and President Donald Trump ordered big cutbacks last July to help finance federal tax cuts.

Lamont repeatedly has warned lawmakers the state can’t afford to cover all proposals on the table. His budget spokesman, Chris Collibee, said any plan to give towns more casino revenues “must be included in a balanced budget.”

“In the coming weeks, we will work with lawmakers to find a responsible solution that provides real relief where it’s needed most,” he said.

Keith M. Phaneuf is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (Ctmirror.org).