No one oversees CT’s justices of the peace. Critics say that has to change
By , Staff Writers, October 9, 2025
BRIDGEPORT — Scores of immigrants travel to Bridgeport each month, often from out of state, to marry U.S. citizens in quick ceremonies at a downtown city office building, an investigation by CT Insider found.
The brief ceremonies are performed by justices of the peace — officials authorized under state law to officiate marriages at their own discretion. The marriages have sparked concerns about immigration fraud and the potential exploitation of both the citizens and the immigrants involved. At least one Bridgeport marriage has led to a criminal conviction for immigration fraud.
There’s no indication justices of the peace have engaged in any wrongdoing with respect to any of these marriages. But concerns about lax oversight have prompted calls from some lawmakers to reform the justice of the peace program in recent years. So far, legislation has yet to make it to the governor’s desk.
Roger Senserrich with the Connecticut Office of the Secretary of the State, which administers the justice of the peace program at the state level, said the office believes the program needs more guardrails.
“Justices of the peace are not allowed to use their appointments to perform illegal actions,” he said in a statement. “Oversight, however, is limited.”
Justices of the peace are a holdover from when Connecticut had both state and municipal courts. Back then, they were elected and had significant judicial power. Now, they’re appointed by Democratic and Republican town committees and, in some instances, town clerks on a four-year cycle. Their authority is limited to officiating marriages, witnessing oaths, taking depositions and other legal functions.
While the Secretary of the State’s Office administers the justice of the peace program at the state level, the agency said its role there is only ministerial.
“The Secretary of the State Office does not have oversight over justices of the peace,” Senserrich said. “There is no designated agency regulating them.”
A justice of the peace must be eligible to vote, Senserrich said. Convicted felons who are in custody, probation or parole are prohibited. However, there’s currently no mechanism to remove a justice of the peace from office.
Two bills introduced in the Connecticut General Assembly last session, H.B. 6529 and H.B. 7150, would have made a host of reforms to the justice of the peace system. However, both failed to pass before the session ended in early June. Similar bills have failed in prior years.
H.B. 6529 would have given the Secretary of the State authority to train and oversee justices of the peace. H.B. 7150 would have required justices of the peace to pass an examination and given the Secretary of the State authority to investigate official misconduct by justices of the peace and suspend or revoke their appointments, among other measures.
Notably, H.B. 7150 would have specifically barred justices of the peace from officiating marriages they “know or should know” are illegal under state law or violate federal immigration law.
In her written testimony supporting H.B. 7150, Secretary of State Stephanie Thomas highlighted marriage fraud as a particular concern for her office.
“We believe the bill should also incorporate attention to marriage fraud,” Thomas wrote. “Justices of the peace are often at the forefront of officiating marriages and ensuring that they have the necessary training to spot and report suspicious activity is essential for safeguarding vulnerable individuals.”
Senserrich echoed those sentiments in a statement to CT Insider.
Pointing back to Thomas’ testimony, Senserrich said if a justice of the peace engages in fraud, misuses their title for personal gain or performs marriages that he or she knows are fraudulent, that justice “should be explicitly prohibited from continuing in their role.”
“Clear restrictions are necessary to help prevent potential abuse and restore the public’s confidence in this office,” he added.
Loretta Jay, head of the state’s Justice of the Peace Association, said her association has backed tougher state regulations for that profession.
“It’s not necessarily we’re looking for JPs to be judge and jury as to who can get married,” she said. “It’s that we want a thoughtful process.”