The Connecticut legislature’s Judiciary Committee voted Monday along party lines to pass a wide-ranging bill allowing the state to sue federal law enforcement agents for violating citizens’ rights and limiting the locations where officers can conduct immigration enforcement.  Ahead of the c ommittee vote, Attorney General William Tong and U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal joined Democratic leaders in the General Assembly to tout the legislation at a press conference in Hartford. Tong said the provisions of the bill weren’t “breaking new ground” in allowing the state to sue federal officers for possible misconduct. “We’re just restating what the law is,” he said. “If you break the law of Connecticut, you’ll be held accountable. If you do not have any other law enforcement reason or justification, you’ll be held accountable,” Tong said.  Senate Bill 397 opens a way for citizens to sue federal law enforcement agents for violations of their constitutional rights through Tong’s office. The bill was proposed following the January killing — by a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officer — of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.  The 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics found that individuals have the right to sue federal officials for damages relating to violations of their constitutional rights. But the court has not allowed a lawsuit under Bivens to proceed in more than 30 years, and a 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision applied further restrictions. Connecticut would join several other states that have enacted similar laws, including California, Massachusetts, Maine and, most recently, Illinois.  The Judiciary Committee advanced the bill Monday, and it now awaits consideration on the floor of the state Senate. If it passes both chambers and is signed into law, the bill would also allow the state to sue the supervisors or employers of any officer that tries to stop someone from photographing or taking a video of the officer.  “You can’t sit in some cushy office somewhere in Washington, or at a regional office, and order people to do things that get people killed and not be held responsible,” Tong said. “If you, as a supervisor, encourage people to do things that are against Connecticut law, you can be held liable as well.” Speaking alongside Tong at Monday’s press conference, Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney, D-New Haven, said the provisions in the bill were protected by the Tenth Amendment, which states that any powers the U.S. Constitution doesn’t specifically grant to the federal government belong to the individual states.  “I think that these bills put down a marker, both of the authority and the strength and the power — and also the obligation that states have to take action — to protect our people, to stand up for constitutional principles even when the federal government is not,” Looney said.   Blumenthal said the law would not interfere with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which says that where federal law and state law conflict, federal law overrides state law.  “ What we have here is basically the state saying our citizens have rights against federal agents in court, and in no way does that in conflict with federal law,” he said.  According to Blumenthal, the bill would not change the qualified immunity that is provided to federal and state law enforcement officers if they are acting within their authority and in good faith.  The bill also would grant the Inspector General the authority to investigate deadly use-of-force incidents involving federal law enforcement agents — including immigration officials — and allows the IG to sue if the federal government bars access to evidence.  It also would establish “protected areas” — including schools, medical facilities and places of worship — where law enforcement would not be allowed to take someone into custody based on a civil offense, including immigration detainers. And it would prohibit law enforcement agents from wearing face coverings that hide their identities.  Earlier this month, hundreds of people testified before the legislature’s Judiciary Committee in support of three immigration-related bills, including S.B. 397 and another proposal, Senate Bill 91, raised by Gov. Ned Lamont. Like S.B. 397, S.B. 91 would create protected locations where immigration enforcement would be prohibited, and it would grant the Inspector General the right to investigate deadly use-of-force incidents perpetrated by federal law enforcement. During Monday’s committee meeting, lawmakers raised concerns broadly about the way Connecticut works with federal law enforcement. Rep. Doug Dubitsky, R-Chaplin, and Rep. Pat Callahan, R-New Fairfield, criticized Connecticut’s Trust Act, which sets limits on the extent to which state and local police may aid federal immigration enforcement agents. [RELATED: CT Trust Act: What to know about law regulating ICE interactions] Under the Trust Act, local and state law enforcement cannot arrest someone solely on the basis of a detainer — a request from ICE that police hold a person for up to 48 hours so federal agents can pick them up. 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 — or certain C felonies.  Some Republicans addressed specifics of the bills at hand, expressing support for some concepts but opposition to many of their provisions. Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, said that he agreed that locations like schools and places of worship should remain off limits to immigration authorities, since their presence could disrupt regular activities for people there. Still, he said, he felt that other aspects of S.B. 397 would go too far. “I understand that a lot of folks in Connecticut have concerns regarding the policies of ICE — Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. They have not done particularly well in certain areas of our country. I certainly share my constituents’ concern and, frankly, their anger at [ICE], killing people that are protesting in various areas of our country,” Kissel said.  But Kissel said he believes ICE plays an important role in arresting unauthorized migrants who have committed crimes.  “People should not be here illegally, and for those illegal immigrants or undocumented aliens that are criminals, that have well-documented criminal histories … having committed murders or assaults or other things … I think in those instances, getting those folks out of the community and into proper hands is a heightened concern,” he said.  In a statement, House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, criticized the bill.  “When are we going to start ‘protecting’ our own citizens? Shielding criminal illegal aliens from federal law is their priority and their version of ‘protecting democracy.’ The whole thing today was political theater, plain and simple,” Candelora said. During the press conference Monday morning, Blumenthal said he expected the bill, once passed, to be challenged in court. But he also said he believes Congress needs to pass federal legislation allowing citizens to hold ICE accountable for actions that violate people’s constitutional rights. He mentioned a bill he has cosponsored, the Accountability for Law Enforcement Act, which would allow lawsuits against federal agencies if their employees violate a citizen’s constitutional rights.  He said U.S. citizens illegally detained by ICE — or people in detention who are denied medical treatment for injuries — currently have no way of getting redress in the court.  “The  federal Accountability for Law Enforcement Act would provide it the federal level, this measure [SB 397] at the state level,” said Blumenthal. “It is absolutely necessary.”  ...read more read less