The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Hartford Immigration Court’s longstanding practice of shielding basic case records and deportation orders from the public eye. The legal action asserts that the ongoing refusal to release fundamental court documents violates the transparency protections guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the complaint targets the administrative secrecy surrounding immigration proceedings. The lawsuit names U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche and Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Angela Munson, who presides over the Hartford facility, as primary defendants in the matter.
At the core of the legal dispute is the court's withholding of vital case information, including docket numbers, case captions, the identities of defendants, and in absentia removal orders. These removal rulings, which are handed down when respondents fail to appear at scheduled hearings, represent critical outcomes that civil rights advocates argue should not be hidden behind closed doors.
Attorneys representing the civil rights organization argue that the First Amendment has traditionally guaranteed the general public and press a presumptive right of access to judicial records. By keeping proceedings and dockets opaque, the immigration court is operating under standards far removed from those of neighboring judicial bodies.
Dan Barrett, the legal director for the ACLU of Connecticut, emphasized the constitutional necessity of public oversight in immigration matters. He noted that the First Amendment ensures that citizens have access to the materials relied upon to adjudicate legal claims, adding that the judgments and dockets maintained by the immigration court should be no more confidential than those handled by the state Superior Court located merely blocks away.
Unlike traditional state courts or federal district and appellate bodies established under Article III of the Constitution, immigration courts operate as an arm of the Executive Branch under the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. This administrative structure has historically led the agency to treat its records differently from those produced by the independent judiciary.
Under current procedures, public access inside immigration courts is severely constrained. While some initial sessions are open to observers, many high-stakes proceedings take place behind closed doors. Furthermore, although the court routinely records its sessions, those audio files are classified as confidential and kept shielded from broader scrutiny.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review has historically defended this approach by pointing to the unique administrative statutory framework that governs its existence. In prior remarks, EOIR spokesperson Kathryn Mattingly stated that the agency does not distribute copies of court records or posted daily dockets because immigration courts are established by statute and regulation rather than as constitutional courts of public record.
The current legal confrontation follows months of mounting friction between transparency advocates and court administrators in Hartford. According to the complaint, the ACLU of Connecticut initiated the matter in July by sending a formal inquiry to Judge Munson requesting docket numbers, case names, defendant identities, and in absentia orders issued during May, June, and July of 2026.
Rather than lodging a traditional statutory records request, the organization explicitly invoked the First Amendment as the constitutional basis for its inquiry. Despite sending an additional follow-up message via email in August, the ACLU reported that court officials ignored the formal requests entirely, prompting the federal filing.
The dispute reflects broader ongoing friction regarding the availability of public information within the Hartford courthouse. Media organizations, including CT Insider, have previously encountered sweeping resistance when seeking basic operational details from the Executive Office for Immigration Review under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
In one instance, the federal agency denied a media request for official audio recordings of immigration judges speaking during open hearings that reporters had physically attended. Even though the requested recordings excluded defendant identities and case-specific details, federal officials rejected the release by claiming an exemption aimed at preventing an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The government's tight control over public information in Hartford has extended to routine court functions. Federal authorities have previously declined media requests to disclose the names of immigration judges assigned to hear cases locally, and they have refused to share advance hearing calendars despite physically displaying a daily list of scheduled individuals on a board in the facility's lobby.
The lawsuit arrives amid intensifying public and legislative attention on the facility's day-to-day operations. Earlier in the week, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal attended approximately an hour of court proceedings before holding a press conference where he leveled severe criticism against the administrative tribunal, characterizing its practices as "intentional injustice."
Blumenthal publicly committed to returning to the facility as part of an expanding probe into its ongoing conduct, pledging to carry out an aggressive investigation into how proceedings are conducted.
The ACLU of Connecticut is represented in the federal action by attorney Alexa Talin Millinger of the law firm Hinckley Allen Snyder LLP. The lawsuit asks the district court to order the immediate production of the requested records and to prohibit the Hartford court from rejecting similar First Amendment requests in the future. As of filing, the case awaited judicial assignment, and the government had not yet submitted a formal response.
(0)