Senate Leaders Condemn Supreme Court Decision Allowing Censorship in Schools

Senate Leaders Condemn Supreme Court Decision Allowing Censorship in Schools

HARTFORD – Senate President Pro Tempore Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, and Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Friday ruling in the Mahmoud v. Taylor case.

“This alarming Supreme Court decision sets a dangerous precedent that allows a vocal minority to dictate what can and cannot be taught in American classrooms. It was exactly this trend we sought to address when we passed legislation protecting libraries from similar censorship. It may start with removing materials that acknowledge the existence of gay and lesbian people, but its chilling effect will be more pervasive: teachers forced to alter their lesson plans to avoid controversy and students left with a limited and unrealistic worldview. By appeasing a narrow ideological viewpoint, we deprive a generation of the critical thinking that education requires. Our children deserve to learn about the diverse reality of our world — not someone’s close-minded opinion of what it should be.”

Opinion: Expanding Connecticut’s property tax exemption for disabled veterans

Opinion: Expanding Connecticut’s property tax exemption for disabled veterans

By Sen. Paul Honig, Rep. Jaime Foster

Last year, the Connecticut General Assembly took a significant step to honor those who have given so much to our country by creating a mandatory municipal property tax exemption for certain disabled veterans.

This policy ensures that veterans with a service-connected permanent and total disability rating of 100% are exempt from paying property taxes on their homes. It was an important law, which acknowledged the sacrifices of those who developed substantial disabilities due to injuries sustained in service.

Let us state clearly: That tax exemption remains a benefit that Connecticut towns and cities must provide to qualifying veterans.

However, as co-chairs of the Veterans’ and Military Affairs Committee, we worked with our colleagues this session to build on that foundation, making updates that expand the reach and flexibility of the program without weakening its core promise.

Because these changes introduced new municipal options, we want to take a moment to clear up a misconception: despite what some may have heard, the legislature did not give towns the ability to opt out of the program. Participation in the exemption remains mandatory for municipalities. Any qualifying veteran will continue to be eligible for the property tax exemption on their primary residence, just as they have since the original law passed.

What we did do was give towns and cities the opportunity to go further in supporting veterans and their families. For example, municipalities now have the option to expand the exemption beyond the dwelling itself to include the surrounding land.

We also added new provisions that allow municipalities to extend property tax relief to surviving spouses of active duty service members killed in the line of duty, a recognition that their loss is a permanent burden they carry for our country. In another change, towns now have the ability to include veterans who have a total disability rating based on individual unemployability, as determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

We also made some clarifying changes to the policy: we ensured veterans living in properties held in trust or with tenant for life agreements who are responsible for property taxes are eligible, while making clear that commercial and income-generating properties are not. At the same time, we streamlined the application process to make it easier for both veterans and local officials to navigate.

With all these changes, it’s not hard to understand how the new options could lead to confusion, and why some might mistakenly believe that the original exemption had become optional. That is not the case. The core benefit remains mandatory. And for qualifying veterans who do not own a home, the law allows them to apply the exemption to a motor vehicle they own and keep in Connecticut.

These updates received a public hearing and passed with unanimous, bipartisan support in both the Veterans’ and Military Affairs Committee and the state Senate. When time ran short in the final days of session, we included these provisions in the state budget — a change meant to ensure its passage in the face of a last-minute time-crunch.

Both the original exemption and this year’s changes reflect our belief that we can never fully repay the debt we owe to those who served, but we can act with purpose to make their lives easier. This tax exemption is one way we ensure that Connecticut’s veterans and their families get the recognition they deserve, and we hope this year’s changes will enable municipalities to extend even greater support to those who have sacrificed so much for our country.

 

View CT Insider Article by clicking here.

Sen. Cohen Responds to Congress’ Attack on Planned Parenthood

Sen. Cohen Responds to Congress’ Attack on Planned Parenthood

HARTFORD – Today, State Senator Christine Cohen issued a response to Congressional Republicans considering a provision of President Trump’s budget bill that would prohibit Medicaid recipients from accessing any healthcare from a provider that also offers abortion services.

According to Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, 45% of Connecticut Planned Parenthood patients rely on the state’s Medicaid program, HUSKY. This would leave 23,000 Connecticut residents without coverage when accessing basic, reproductive healthcare.

“Three years ago, when the Supreme Court toppled Roe, Democrats warned that this was just the beginning. Republicans claimed that the decision merely ‘gave power back to the states’ to determine whether or not women could make choices about their own bodies. Since then, we have seen IVF come under attack, we have seen anti-choice states attempt to prosecute abortion providers and patients in Blue states, we have even seen a woman in Georgia be arrested for experiencing a miscarriage.”

“And now, Congressional Republicans are considering a provision that would restrict access to critical healthcare like cancer screenings, contraception, STI testing and treatment and more. Not only would this create barriers to essential services for those on HUSKY, but it would be devastating for Planned Parenthoods across the country who have already lost tens of millions in funding under the Trump administration.”

“Make no mistake, despite the American people overwhelmingly embracing choice in referendums across the country, the Right’s attack on women’s bodies will not stop until abortion is illegal in all 50-states.”

Maroney Responds to Trump’s Push to Ban State Level AI Regulation

Maroney Responds to Trump’s Push to Ban State Level AI Regulation

Today, State Senator James Maroney (D- Milford), strong proponent of artificial intelligence regulation in Connecticut, is responding to President Trump’s proposal to ban states from AI regulation. During the 2025 legislative session, the Connecticut Senate passed comprehensive AI legislation for the second year in a row, but the bill but did not gain the support needed and failed to pass the House due to a veto threat from Governor Lamont.

“This proposal would strip states of the ability to protect children online, combat deepfake revenge porn, regulate self-driving cars, and uphold existing data privacy laws. It represents a significant overreach into states’ rights. In New England, we value local control and this would eliminate our ability to respond to the real concerns our communities share when it comes to harms posed by AI.”

Sen. Lesser Responds to Senate Ruling Protecting Medicaid

Sen. Lesser Responds to Senate Ruling Protecting Medicaid

HARTFORD – Today, State Senator Matt Lesser, Senate Chair of the Human Services Committee, issued a statement in response to the Senate parliamentarian disqualifying significant provisions of Donald Trump’s budget bill.

Senate Republicans in Washington hope to pass Donald Trump’s budget bill through the process of reconciliation, which would require just 50 votes, instead of 60. Reconciliation and its lower vote threshold applies only to budget-related bills.

The Senate parliamentarian enforced the “Byrd Rule” and ruled that several provisions of the budget bill centered on policy, not budget, and would require 60 votes to pass.

Some of the provisions disqualified by the Parliamentarian include:

-Immigrant Medicaid eligibility

-Prohibiting states from increasing the provider tax on hospitals

-Expansion of FMAP for certain states providing payments for health care furnished to certain individuals

-Prohibiting Medicaid and CHIP funding for gender affirming care

-Read more here

“Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans think the rules don’t apply to them, and this ruling is a huge win for Medicaid recipients, state economies, and Americans at large,” said Sen. Lesser. “The attacks on Medicaid are not only heartless, but they are an unfunded mandate on states across this country that would increase costs for low and middle-earners to give tax breaks to the 1%. This ruling stops MAGA Republicans from shifting billions of dollars in costs onto Connecticut taxpayers and health care providers, but there is still much more to be concerned about. We must stay vigilant and I await MAGA Republicans’ next plans to steal from the poor to give to the rich.”

Sen. Gaston (opinion): Drones can boost our police force

Sen. Gaston (opinion): Drones can boost our police force

Bridgeport is set to take a major step forward in modernizing public safety, as new funding in the state budget will support the launch of a pilot program equipping the city’s police department with drones. Designed to enhance situational awareness, improve emergency response times, and support de-escalation efforts, the program marks a significant investment in innovative policing strategies. With the inclusion of this initiative in the state budget, Bridgeport becomes one of the first cities in Connecticut to explore how drone technology can be safely and effectively integrated into community-focused law enforcement.

Calling 911 you expect an immediate response. If you need help you want someone there within minutes. If a crime is taking place, officers are also expected to get to the scene ASAP. Police officers, however, don’t have teleportation powers. Although sometimes they arrive to a scene in minutes, what if we could enact something that would allow officers to process the scene quicker than any human could arrive.

Last legislative session, I introduced a bill to launch a pilot program allowing police departments to deploy drones to emergency scenes ahead of officers, with the goal of improving response times and enhancing public safety — especially in high-crime areas. While the bill did not advance, it sparked important conversations about the future of law enforcement technology and innovative ways to keep communities safe.

I’m excited that Bridgeport is set to receive funding to begin using drones as part of its public safety efforts. This is a major step forward in embracing smart, innovative tools that can help protect both our officers and our communities. While my bill didn’t pass last session, seeing Bridgeport move forward with this kind of technology shows there’s real momentum behind these ideas — and it reinforces why I’ll keep pushing for broader implementation across the state.

Drones offer a variety of benefits when it comes to aiding our police force. Not only can they arrive to a scene quickly, they can provide law enforcement agencies with a unique and versatile perspective, allowing them to surveillance areas that might be challenging or dangerous for officers to access directly. Drones empower police forces to swiftly gather critical information, monitor large crowds, and respond rapidly to emergencies.

Drones play a pivotal role in augmenting police departments, particularly in the face of declining recruit numbers nationwide. As police departments struggle with recruitment and retention, drones can provide enhanced capabilities without requiring additional human resources. They serve as additional eyes compensating for a shortage of officers.

Sending a drone to the crime scene first also limits potential risk of an officer. Sometimes when law enforcement heads to a scene, they might not know what to expect. By sending a drone ahead of time, they evaluate the scene from above allowing officers to gauge what they are going to step into when they arrive.

The use of drones not only improves situational awareness but also aids in search and rescue missions, crime scene documentation, and traffic management. As technology continues to advance, the integration of drones into police operations not only enhances overall public safety but also amplifies law enforcement’s commitment to embracing innovative solutions to benefit communities they serve.

View CT Post Article here- Sen. Gaston (opinion): Drones can boost our police force

Sen. Cohen Welcomes Diesel Tax Cut

Sen. Cohen Welcomes Diesel Tax Cut

HARTFORD – State Senator Christine Cohen, Senate Chair of the Transportation Committee, welcomes news that the state diesel tax will fall by 7% beginning July 1. Each year, the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services determines the diesel tax using a formula linking the tax to the wholesale cost of diesel fuel.

This year, the diesel tax will fall from 52.4 cents per gallon, to 48.9 cents – a 3.5 cent per gallon reduction.

“This tax cut comes at a critical time when the economy is facing much uncertainty between conflict in the Middle East that could affect oil prices and the administration’s on-again-off-again trade wars,” said Sen. Cohen. “This decrease will provide some relief on operating costs for businesses, the trucking industry in particular, and I am hopeful that relief will be shared with consumers.”

In 2023, Senator Cohen voted alongside many of her colleagues to freeze the expected diesel tax increases.

You can learn more about the decrease here, and the formula used to determine the diesel tax here.

Senator Honig Achieves Perfect Voting Record in 2025 Legislative Session

Senator Honig Achieves Perfect Voting Record in 2025 Legislative Session

Senator Paul Honig, D-Harwinton, announced Wednesday that he maintained a perfect voting record during the 2025 legislative session, participating in all 437 roll call votes taken on the Senate floor.

“The people of the 8th District elected me to be their voice in Hartford, and every vote is an opportunity to stand up for their priorities,” Senator Honig said. “I was proud to cast a vote on every issue, from statewide matters like energy affordability to local concerns like securing the first increase to municipal road repair funding in more than a decade. It’s an honor to represent the families of my district and I was proud to show up for every last vote.”

Senator Honig was one of eight state senators, all of them Democrats, who were present for each of the 437 votes taken in the Connecticut Senate during the 2025 legislative session.

This year marked Senator Honig’s first session in office representing the towns of Avon, Barkhamsted, Canton, Colebrook, Granby, Harwinton, Hartland, New Hartford, Norfolk, Simsbury, and Torrington.

SENATOR MAHER PROUD OF 100% VOTING RECORD IN 2025 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

SENATOR MAHER PROUD OF 100% VOTING RECORD IN 2025 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

State Senator Ceci Maher (D-Wilton) today was proud to announce her perfect voting record during the 2025 legislative session. Out of 437 total votes, Sen. Maher participated in all of them, making sure her constituents had a voice in every matter brought to the Senate floor.

“Elected officials are tasked with the responsibility of representing their communities, and this makes it clear I take that very seriously,” said Sen. Maher. “Each of my votes is calculated to support what I truly believe is the best way forward for Connecticut and our region. I’m pleased I was able to give our district a voice at the table for every one of the hundreds of issues we considered and hope to continue this effort in the coming legislative session.”

This is the second straight year Sen. Maher participated in every vote the Senate considered, following similar results in 2024.

According to Office of Legislative Management data, Sen. Maher was one of eight Democratic Senators to participate in every vote before the Senate.

Sen. Gadkar-Wilcox Statement on Supreme Court Deportation Decision

Sen. Gadkar-Wilcox Statement on Supreme Court Deportation Decision

Today, State Senator Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox, a professor of constitutional law, released a statement in response to the Supreme Court decision that allows the deportation of undocumented immigrants to third-party countries. Senator Gadkar-Wilcox argues that sending individuals to countries outside of country their origin, where they don’t speak the language, understand the culture, or share the same religion, and where they may face harm and violence, violates our most fundamental constitutional right to due process.

“The Supreme Court’s recent ruling allows the Trump administration to deport individuals to countries that are not their country of origin, including conflict zones and countries where they could face persecution – all without due process. Not only is this unconscionable, but it goes well beyond the pale of settled law.”

“We have already seen this administration send individuals to a prison in El Salvador known for human rights violations without so much as a charge. We have seen masked officers abduct a student off the street for exercising free speech. We have seen Donald Trump defy court orders that he does not agree with. We are witnessing an attack on our constitution unfold before our eyes.”

“In 1944, the Korematsu v. U.S. case legitimized the sending of more than 120,000 Americans of Japanese origin to internment camps. When we reflect on that case today, history shows us that Supreme Court cases that blatantly violate basic human rights will ultimately be remembered as a stain on the constitutional order of the United States. This administration and the Supreme Court would do well to look towards history and learn from our most shameful moments, not repeat them.”

Background
One of the central purposes of due process is to ensure that people are not detained without a meaningful opportunity to be heard or deported to places where they would face violence and persecution. The due process right that the court undermines with this decision is so fundamental to our system of laws that it goes all the way back to the Magna Carta (1215): “No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.”

The habeas corpus right in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, maintains that anyone who is detained has the right to be heard by a neutral arbiter.

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says “no person, shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The Fourteenth Amendment adds that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

The court has held the line on due process in Boumediene v. Bush (2007) and JGG v. Trump (2025). In the former, which applied to detentions of non-US citizens after 9/11, and in the latter, in which the Supreme Court prohibited the Trump Administration from implementing the Alien Enemies Act to send deportees to El Salvador before providing due process to the accused, the court upheld due process. It should have provided that same due process here. This is the minimal constitutional requirement and a fundamental moral obligation.