CT Judicial Branch Launches Remote Hearings Page Over ICE Fears

Connecticut’s Judicial Branch launched a new remote hearings webpage on Friday, giving residents a single destination to request virtual appearances in family, civil, criminal, and juvenile court cases as pressure from lawmakers and immigration advocates reached a sustained peak.

The move follows months of documented ICE activity at Connecticut courthouses, including an incident last August in which masked federal officers arrested two men inside a state judicial building in Stamford. Attorney Philip Berns, an immigration lawyer who witnessed federal agents operating in that city, described their tactics bluntly. “They were basically hiding behind bushes waiting to spring out at people,” Berns said.

That arrest was part of a broader pattern. Immigration enforcement took place both inside and outside Connecticut courthouses during the summer of 2025, pushing immigrant communities and their advocates to demand structural protection from the Judicial Branch rather than waiting on legislation.

What the page actually does

The new webpage consolidates everything a person needs to participate in court remotely: instructions for requesting a hearing, a guide to joining a virtual meeting, and a direct link to download Microsoft Teams, the platform the Judicial Branch uses for remote proceedings. Applicants must own or have access to a device that supports Teams. The court then reviews each request and decides whether to approve it.

Attorney Stephen N. Ment, executive director of the branch’s External Affairs Division, said in a statement that the page is designed to expand access to justice for all people the Judicial Branch serves, including those with mobility or transportation challenges.

The practical effect, though, goes well beyond logistics. For immigrants who fear arrest simply by walking into a courthouse, the option to appear remotely may mean the difference between showing up and skipping a court date entirely, a choice with its own serious legal consequences.

Lawmakers pushed hard for this

The political pressure behind Friday’s launch started building last fall. A group of 21 state senators sent a letter to Connecticut Supreme Court Chief Justice Raheem Mullins urging the branch to adopt protocols protecting vulnerable people. The next day, nearly 100 Connecticut organizations co-signed a separate letter to Gov. Ned Lamont and congressional leaders demanding action.

Those letters called specifically for two things: remote appearance options for all court events, and a ban on ICE arrests at courthouses and in transit to and from them. The branch has now addressed the first demand. The second remains incomplete, though Mullins issued a policy on Sept. 16 that bans officers from wearing face coverings in court without prior approval unless they have a medical need, and requires a judicial warrant for most immigration arrests on court property.

Senate President Pro Tempore Martin M. Looney and Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff praised the branch’s speed in a joint statement reported by CT Mirror. “Government gets criticized for bureaucratic delay, but in this case, the Connecticut Judicial Branch listened to our concerns about people missing court appearances because they are terrified of ICE and they didn’t wait for the General Assembly to pass a law to make its proceedings more accessible for all Connecticut residents, including those living in fear of the Trump regime’s lawless immigration forces,” Looney and Duff said.

Why this matters outside Bridgeport and New Haven

It’s tempting to read this as a story about urban immigrant communities, and it partly is. But the courthouse access problem touches towns across the state. Stamford, a city of roughly 135,000 that draws immigrants from across Fairfield County, saw federal enforcement in its own judicial building. Residents of Greenwich, Norwalk, and other Gold Coast towns who need to appear for civil or family matters now have a clearer path to do so without setting foot in a building where federal agents have demonstrated they’ll operate.

The remote option also doesn’t require an immigration-related reason. Anyone with a qualifying electronic device can submit a request across the four court case types the program covers. Courts retain discretion to deny requests, so the page doesn’t guarantee remote access, but it standardizes where people go to ask for it.

The General Assembly has its own legislation pending that would expand courthouse protections further, but the Judicial Branch’s decision to act administratively means residents don’t have to wait for the session calendar to catch up to a problem that is already happening outside courtroom doors.