Local News

Many lawmakers support reining in ICE, but the House and Senate will have to find a compromise before Gov. Maura Healey can sign off.

• ...

Send this article to your social connections.

As anti-ICE sentiment reached new highs in January following the killings of two protesters in Minnesota, Gov. Maura Healey introduced legislation that seeks to rein in the immigration enforcement agency in a number of ways. After the House passed a version of the bill in March, the state Senate passed its own version last week, marking another major step in the process. 

The Senate passed its version of the bill with a 37-3 vote last Thursday. 

“Across our Commonwealth, we are seeing children torn from their parents, students pulled off the street, and families living in fear — and we refuse to accept that as normal in Massachusetts,” Senate President Karen Spilka said in a statement. 

But key differences remain between the two versions of the bill, and lawmakers must now hash out a compromise that can be sent to Healey’s desk. At the same time, Republican opponents are warning that the bill runs counter to past Supreme Court decisions and could be the subject of future litigation. 

The Senate bill prohibits federal agents from making warrantless civil immigration arrests at “sensitive locations” like state courthouses, hospitals, places of worship, and public schools. It bars local law enforcement agencies from entering into new 287(g) agreements with the federal government where they are deputized to carry out immigration enforcement operations. It creates a new civil liability for federal agents, allowing individuals to sue under state law if their Constitutional rights have been violated. 

The Senate bill also bans state and local police from stopping, questioning, or targeting people solely because of their immigration status. It explicitly prohibits them from taking any action that constitutes civil immigration enforcement, while preserving their ability to coordinate with federal officials during criminal investigations. 

Another notable provision of the Senate bill blocks the deployment of other states’ National Guards into Massachusetts without the permission of the governor. 

Immigrant advocates, union leaders and others praised the Senate vote, with some framing it as an improvement on the House version passed earlier this year. 

“We thank the State Senate for not only passing but strengthening the House version, so that all Massachusetts residents can access crucial public sites like schools and courts without worrying about whether the sound of their voice, the manner of their dress, or the color of their skin puts them at risk,” Lenita Reason, executive director of the Brazilian Worker Center, said in a statement. 

The House bill differs in a few notable ways: It only restricts warrantless arrests in courthouses, not in the other “sensitive locations” named in the Senate bill. It maintains a “narrow, time-limited exception” for local law enforcement agencies to enter into some 287(g) agreements for “criminal public safety purposes.” 

It does not create the civil liability for federal agents that the Senate’s version does. 

The House bill contains rules for correctional facilities regarding interpretation services, confidential attorney-client communications, ensuring legal access to court proceedings, and a public-facing detainee locator system that the Senate bill does not. It authorizes courts to consider “the likelihood of imminent deportation” when determining bail, something the Senate bill also does not do. 

The Senate bill allows for parents to establish a “pre-arranged guardianship” for their children in the event that they are detained or deported by federal agents, something the House bill does not touch on. 

As lawmakers work to reconcile these differences, opponents are arguing that the proposed policies would undermine public safety and the Massachusetts Republican Party is calling the legality of the legislation into question. 

“By moving forward with the Protect Act, Massachusetts lawmakers are directly challenging the federal government’s role in immigration enforcement, a principle upheld by the Supreme Court in a case brought by President Obama’s own Justice Department,” Massachusetts Republican National Committeewoman Janet Fogarty said in a statement after the Senate passed its bill. 

Fogarty was referencing the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States. After lawmakers in Arizona imposed strict restrictions on undocumented immigrants, the Court struck down multiple aspects of the new law and reinforced the federal government’s dominant role in setting immigration policy.

The advancement of the immigration enforcement bill in the Senate “raises serious questions about its compatibility with established federal law and precedent, potentially setting the stage for further legal challenges,” the Mass. GOP said in a release.