Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a coalition of 22 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief challenging DHS’s policy and practice of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests. The press release describes a court challenge, not a privacy enforcement action or monetary penalty.
This press release concerns immigration enforcement litigation, not privacy practices or a privacy enforcement action, so it identifies no privacy-related vendor, customer, or employee contract clauses requiring revision. Organizations that contract for enforcement-related services may wish to review clauses addressing legal authority, civil-rights compliance, arrest procedures, subcontractor oversight, and incident reporting.
Entity
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Industry
OtherOfficial Press Release
https://portal.ct.gov/ag/press-releases/2026-press-releases/attorney-general-tong-supports-litigation-challenging-unlawful-immigration-arrests
26 5045 brief of amici states filed.pdf?rev=1433c936d61d408e
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/ag/press_releases/2026/26-5045---brief-of-amici-states---filed.pdf?rev=1433c936d61d408ea9abb7ff3ac82014&hash=46EDC0F2FA8AC0BED8FA0DD001A2CAFD
Connecticut Attorney General Enforcement Page
https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Privacy/Privacy-Resources
"the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) policy and practice"
"filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit"
"conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests without determining if the individual is an escape risk."
"as part of a coalition of 22 attorneys general"
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones joined a coalition of attorneys general in filing an amicus brief challenging DHS’s practice of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests without determining whether individuals are likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The release reports that a district court had previously granted a preliminary injunction in the underlying case; it does not report a penalty or a new remedy imposed on DHS by this brief.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing a DHS rule that allows certain affirmative asylum applications to be referred to removal proceedings without an asylum officer interview. The coalition argues the rule violates federal law and harms asylum seekers, including unaccompanied children; this was a policy opposition letter, not a privacy enforcement action.
Attorney General Jay Jones joined a coalition of 26 states to sue the Trump administration over unlawful conditions attached to counterterrorism and emergency funding. The conditions would require states to share voter data with DHS and assist in immigration enforcement, which the coalition argues violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Spending Clause.
Other enforcement action: Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, joined by 18 other states, sued the Trump Administration over its unlawful $100,000 fee for H-1B visa petitions. The lawsuit alleges that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act by exceeding congressional authority and bypassing required rulemaking procedures, harming educational institutions and employers.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a coalition of 18 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing the Department of Homeland Security's expansion of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to include U.S.-born citizens. The coalition argues the expansion violates the Privacy Act of 1974, creates a massive surveillance database, increases data breach risks, and will lead to inaccurate verifications and denial of benefits.
$500K
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong announced settlements with SunRun, Inc., Elevate Solar Solutions, and two salespeople over allegations of deceptive solar sales, including impersonating consumers and locking homeowners into long-term contracts without consent. SunRun must pay $300,000 and provide consumer relief; Elevate and the salespeople face a stated $200,000 penalty, with $100,000 suspended subject to ongoing compliance.