The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut has initiated a federal lawsuit against the Hartford Immigration Court, challenging the administrative tribunal’s long-standing policy of withholding its case dockets, case captions, and final judicial orders from the general public.
The legal action, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on Wednesday, takes aim at the system of confidentiality governing the state's primary federal immigration venue. The complaint names two prominent government officials as defendants: Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Angela Munson, who presides over the Hartford facility, and U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche.
At the core of the legal challenge is the court's refusal to disclose basic case records that are routinely made available in other American courtrooms. Specifically, the civil liberties group is asking the federal court to mandate the release of case names, docket numbers, defendant identities, and in absentia removal rulings, which immigration judges hand down when an individual fails to appear for a scheduled hearing date.
Attorneys representing the ACLU argue that shielding these documents from public view directly violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit asserts that the nation's foundational charter has historically recognized and guaranteed a public right of access to documents generated during formal adjudicative proceedings.
Highlighting the necessity of judicial transparency, Dan Barrett, the legal director for the ACLU of Connecticut, emphasized that open government records are critical to accountability. Barrett noted that the First Amendment ensures that citizens have access to materials used to decide such matters, asserting that the immigration court's judgments and dockets should be treated with no more secrecy than those of the state Superior Court located just down the street.
Unlike standard federal district, appellate, and Supreme courts, immigration courts do not belong to the independent judicial branch established under Article III of the Constitution. Instead, they operate under the administrative purview of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, an executive branch component within the U.S. Department of Justice.
Under this executive framework, immigration case records remain broadly inaccessible to journalists and the general public. While certain preliminary proceedings are open to spectators, many consequential hearings are conducted behind closed doors, and official audio recordings generated by the court are classified as confidential even when they document public sessions.
The institutional resistance to public disclosure in Hartford has previously generated friction with news organizations seeking to monitor the court's operations. Last year, CT Insider submitted a formal Freedom of Information Act request seeking audio recordings of immigration judges speaking during open hearings attended by a reporter, with all defendant identifiers excluded.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review ultimately denied that media request, justifying the decision by citing a statutory privacy exemption. Agency officials argued that releasing the spoken audio of immigration judges would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, despite the absence of any individual case details.
Federal authorities have also declined past requests to identify the immigration judges actively assigned to the Hartford bench. In addition, while the court displays a physical list of scheduled daily cases inside its lobby, the agency has repeatedly refused to provide advance docket information or upcoming hearing schedules to the press.
Detailing the government's stance on the issue, EOIR spokesperson Kathryn Mattingly stated last October that the agency does not provide copies of court records or daily docket listings. Mattingly emphasized that immigration courts are established by statutory and regulatory frameworks rather than serving as constitutional courts of public record.
The events leading up to Wednesday's lawsuit began in July 2026, when the ACLU of Connecticut sent a formal letter to Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Munson. That initial request sought case captions, docket numbers, defendant names, and in absentia deportation orders covering May, June, and July of 2026, explicitly basing the demand on First Amendment principles rather than FOIA.
After receiving no response, the organization followed up with an electronic inquiry in August. According to the federal complaint, Munson failed to answer either communication, leaving the civil liberties organization to pursue legal intervention in federal court.
The ACLU of Connecticut is being represented in the proceedings by attorney Alexa Talin Millinger of the law firm Hinckley Allen Snyder LLP. The lawsuit asks the district court to compel the production of the withheld files and to issue an injunction preventing the Hartford facility from denying similar records requests in the future.
As of the filing date, the lawsuit had not yet been assigned to a presiding district judge, and neither defendant had submitted a formal response. The Executive Office for Immigration Review did not immediately reply to a request for comment regarding the newly filed complaint.
The federal complaint comes amid heightened scrutiny directed at the Hartford Immigration Court. Days prior to the filing, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal attended approximately an hour of court hearings before holding a press conference in which he accused the tribunal of "intentional injustice" and pledged to intensify an ongoing inquiry into the facility's operations.
(0)