CT Legislature 2026: Guns in Schools, Rent Caps & ICE Bills

Connecticut’s legislature had a busy week, with committees advancing bills on guns in schools, rent control, ICE detention facilities, and hospital taxes — a snapshot of the competing pressures lawmakers face as the 2026 session picks up speed.

Off-duty officers and school safety

The Public Safety Committee heard testimony Tuesday on a bill that would allow law enforcement officers to carry firearms on school property even when they are off-duty. The proposal quickly exposed a familiar fault line in gun policy debates.

Special education attorney Andy Feinstein came out against the measure, arguing that schools should be sanctuaries from the broader culture of armed confrontation. “Schools are supposed to be safe places,” Feinstein said. “Having more guns in school makes that less safe.”

Supporters pushed back hard. Rep. Greg Howard, a Stonington Republican and working police officer, argued that his ability to protect children shouldn’t depend on whether he happens to be on the clock when a threat materializes. Rep. Michael DiGiovancarlo, a Waterbury Republican, offered the blunter version of that argument: “The good guy with the gun stops the bad guy with the gun. I think that’s the bottom line.”

The committee did not vote on the bill Tuesday.

Lamont’s rent increase cap

The Housing Committee passed a bill Tuesday that would give fair rent commissions authority to reject rent increases above 5 percent, or above the rise in the consumer price index, whichever is higher. The cap would apply specifically to landlords who purchased their property within the past year.

The bill, which came from Governor Ned Lamont’s office, targets a pattern that has become familiar in Connecticut communities: large companies acquiring residential properties and immediately raising rents, displacing long-term tenants before they have any recourse. The measure passed along party lines, with Republicans voting against it. Landlord groups have also registered opposition, arguing the cap interferes with property owners’ ability to respond to market conditions.

Housing advocates have pushed for stronger tenant protections for years, and this bill represents one of the more concrete legislative responses to Connecticut’s affordability crisis. Whether it can survive the full chamber is an open question.

The warehouse bill nobody wants to call an ICE bill

The Planning and Development Committee held a public hearing Wednesday on House Bill 5505, which would require municipal approval before commercial warehouses could be used to house people for more than 24 hours. The approval process would include public hearings and notifications to neighboring properties.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Eleni Kavros DeGraw of Avon, framed the intent straightforwardly: she said the legislation is designed to prevent homeless individuals from being placed in warehouse facilities with dangerous or unsanitary conditions.

But the bill’s potential applications are wider. If enacted, it could effectively require public notice before U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement opens a detention facility in Connecticut, following a pattern seen in other states where ICE converted warehouse space into detention centers with little or no community input. DeGraw did not frame the bill as an immigration measure, but the connection was not lost on those watching the hearing.

Hospitals push back on provider tax

Hospital executives testified Wednesday against Governor Lamont’s proposed changes to the hospital provider tax. Lamont’s budget called for a $100 million increase to the existing tax, which itself represented a significant retreat from an earlier proposal to raise the tax by $375 million.

Even with that concession, and even accounting for $40 million in supplemental payments the state would return to hospitals, the hospital industry says the math still doesn’t work. Executives testified that Connecticut hospitals already lose $1.5 billion annually providing care to patients on Medicaid and other state programs, and that additional tax burden would deepen financial strain across the system.

The provider tax has been a recurring point of conflict between the Lamont administration and hospital executives. The governor’s office has argued that hospitals can absorb some additional contribution given their nonprofit status and revenue levels. Hospital representatives say that framing ignores the structural losses they carry each year.

These four debates share a common thread: they each reflect a Connecticut government trying to respond to real pressures, from housing costs to public safety to immigration enforcement, with tools that are either contested, limited, or both.