Judge Sarala Nagala denied a request from Attorney General William Tong last week to delay preliminary injunction proceedings until a November trial, setting up an imminent legal showdown between the state and federal government.
“The court finds that there is not good cause to consolidate the proceedings, which would have the effect of delaying the resolution of the preliminary injunction motion for several months,” Nagala wrote in an order.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued Connecticut in federal court last month over the new law, arguing the limits it places on U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement officers and other federal authorities are unconstitutional.
The law, known as the “Act Concerning Democracy and Government Accountability,” subjects federal agents to state criminal charges for unjustifiably using force and bans them from wearing masks, among other provisions.
According to online court records, Justice Department lawyers asked Nagala for a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the enforcement of the state law until after the lawsuit is resolved at an upcoming trial.
Tong argued he needed time to prepare for the proceedings and asked they be delayed to November, but Nagala rejected that request. The judge noted the state law is already in effect, raising “imminence concerns.”
“Federal law enforcement officers may be subject to enforcement of challenged statutory provisions during the pendency of the preliminary injunction motion,” she wrote.
It is not yet clear when Nagala may rule on the injunction. The judge asked lawyers for both sides to come up with a schedule for the proceedings by Monday, but court records show they failed to reach an agreement.
In a joint filing, Justice Department lawyers proposed that the defendants respond to the preliminary injunction motion by June 26, while Tong asked for the deadline to be set two weeks later on July 13.
Federal lawyers wrote in the filing that they believe discovery is irrelevant to the legal issues surrounding the case and claimed state lawyers have not cited any reasons for delaying the proceedings.
In response, Tong argued the additional weeks are needed to “fully brief and respond to the complex issues in this case, including preparing potential expert declarations, preparing declarations and marshaling evidence from their clients.”
Elizabeth Benton, a spokesperson for the attorney general’s office, said in a statement Tuesday that Tong will continue to aggressively defend the law in court, but declined further comment due to the pending litigation.