The Connecticut chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU‑CT) filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday seeking immediate access to basic immigration court records from the Hartford immigration court. The suit names U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche and Chief Immigration Judge Angela Munson as defendants.
What the ACLU is requesting
According to the complaint, ACLU‑CT asked for all docket numbers and case captions for the period May 2026 through July 2026, as well as every “in absentia” removal order – orders of deportation issued when a respondent fails to appear for a hearing. The organization says it made the request twice and received no response.
Legal basis and the administration’s response
The ACLU argues that the First Amendment guarantees public access to these records and that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process should not be required to obtain them. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the Immigration Court is bound by the First Amendment right of public access and asks the court to prohibit Blanche and Munson from blocking the ACLU’s requests.
The Department of Justice has not yet commented on the filing.
Privacy and safety concerns
Critics, including Connecticut state officials, warn that releasing full names and other identifying details could jeopardize the safety of asylum seekers and other vulnerable individuals. A recent state law bars public agencies from sharing personal information that could reveal a person’s location, a measure enacted after concerns that federal data requests might be used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Barrett, the ACLU‑CT legal director, says the group is not seeking a public database of individual cases, but rather wants the ability to request and receive the information promptly, without the lengthy FOIA delays. He acknowledges that courts could automatically seal sensitive details, such as minors’ names or Social Security numbers, to protect privacy.
Context on immigration court data
Case‑level immigration data is already published by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, a Justice Department division. Those releases omit personal identifiers but include outcomes, respondent birth year, nationality, language, relief sought, and whether the most recent hearing was in absentia.
Analysis of Hartford court data shows a striking trend: more than 99.8% of in‑absentia rulings this year resulted in removal orders. In May, over 90% of closed cases involved respondents who failed to appear. From January through August 1, 79% of cases were marked in absentia at a final hearing, and 2025 saw the second‑highest in‑absentia rate in a decade, second only to 2026’s 41% no‑show rate.
Political reaction
U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D‑Conn.) visited the Hartford immigration court and described the situation as “purposeful chaos,” blaming staff shortages and a reduced number of judges for what he called “intentional injustice designed to deport as many people as possible as quickly as the system is able to do it.”
While the ACLU frames the lawsuit as a transparency issue, many Connecticut officials stress the need to balance openness with the protection of individuals seeking asylum or facing removal.
What could change
If the court rules in favor of the ACLU, the immigration court may adopt a practice of automatically sealing the names of asylum applicants and other sensitive information, mirroring existing rules in state and federal trial courts that protect minors and personal data.
The case could set a legal precedent affecting immigration courts nationwide, potentially reshaping how public access and privacy are balanced in the federal immigration system.
Original reporting: The Connecticut Mirror — read the source article.
