MA Legislature Sends PROTECT Act to the Governor’s Desk

Yesterday, the MA House and Senate sent their final, negotiated version of the PROTECT Act to the Governor’s desk.

The House voted 137-21 to accept the conference report and enact the the bill. Republicans Brad Jones (R-North Reading), Marcus Vaughn (R-Wrentham), David Vieira (R-Falmouth), and Donald Wong (R-Saugus) joined Democrats in voting for it. Note that Jones is retiring, and the other three all have Democratic challengers and represent districts that Harris won in 2024.

The Senate took a standing vote, meaning that the AYEs stood and the NAYs stood but no formal record was taken.

Here’s a run-down of what the bill would do, credit to the Protecting Massachusetts Communities Coalition (and especially Julia Schlozman of the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action):

Restricting state and local law enforcement collaboration with ICE 

  • Limits when law enforcement can ask about immigration/citizenship status, permitting the practice only when “directly material to an element” of felony or trafficking and requiring documentation of any such inquiry 
  • Effectively bans new 287(g) agreements with ICE (i.e., agreements in which state and local law enforcement are deputized as ICE agents)
    • The bill, unfortunately, leaves in place the existing agreement between the Department of Correction and ICE, the only statewide agreement in a blue state. 
    • The ban is not a “clean” ban, but the elaborate multi-step process for getting a time-limited 287(g) agreement under the bill is designed in such a way that it is unlikely to ever happen. 
  • Bans various types of law enforcement and court staff assistance of ICE, such as participating in civil immigration enforcement, holding someone on a detainer, investigating someone for ICE, stopping or arresting someone based on their status 
  • Restricts certain information sharing with ICE, namely, law enforcement would be prohibited from providing non-public information about custody status, release date, or court appearances to ICE except at the end of a sentence for certain crimes or in response to a request about a specific individual made within the prior 30 days 

Protecting Courthouses 

  • Bans warrantless civil arrests in or around courthouses, including in courthouse lawns, plazas, courtyards, steps, ramps, sidewalks, walkways, garages, driveways, parking lots

Protecting Elections and Holding ICE Agents Accountable 

  • Creates civil liability under Massachusetts law for violations of federal laws prohibiting military officers at polling locations and military interference with elections
  • Allows federal officers to be sued in state court for violations of the US constitution

Protecting Sensitive Locations 

  • Bans warrantless civil arrests at day cares, schools, and health care facilities
  • Requires day cares, schools, and health care facilities to adopt model plans for interactions with ICE

Protecting Individuals in ICE Detention

  • Requires that detainees receive notice at intake in their primary language of the right to counsel, to decline interviews, instructions for contacting legal counsel, and procedures for grievances/other communication
  • Requires various types of written materials provided to detainees (e.g., intake materials, medical interactions, etc.) to be translated
  • Requires phone confirmation of a detainee’s presence 
  • Requires facility to (attempt to) notify counsel and contact/family within 6 hours of intake and transfer
  • Requires phone calls and videoconferencing between detainees and attorneys
  • Prohibits facilities from impeding access to counsel or proceedings

Other Measures 

  • Allows the Governor to prohibit or limit civil immigration enforcement activities in nonpublic areas of state entities
  • Requires the Governor (in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office) to issue multilingual guidelines regarding how state agencies, “private entities,” law enforcement, and school districts should handle interactions with ICE and what civil rights members of the public have when interacting with immigration agents
  • Requires employers to provide written notice of an I-9 audit of employee immigration documentation to employees within 48 hours of receipt
  • Allows pre-appointment of a legal guardian in case of “adverse immigration action against the parent or guardian”
  • Establishes procedures and timelines for law enforcement agencies to issue certifications for T/U visas for victims of trafficking or crime, with a required response window of 45 days 
  • Allows the State Auditor to audit any sheriff holding ICE detainees, any immigration detention facility, or any “arrangement” that “utilizes” property, services, etc. provided by Massachusetts, a city/town, or a state/local agency
  • Establishes a three-year standing commission on immigration issues, renewable for up to three more years

MA Senate Passes Its Economic Development Bill. What Happened During the Debate?

Late last night, the MA Senate passed its economic development bill after going through 600 amendments.

Of those 600, only 5 received recorded votes. The Senate voted….

  • 31 to 8 to revise the calculation of the state’s revenue cap (known as 62F) to be 7.5% of the combined personal income of the state, as opposed to the existing formula based on the growth of wages and salaries. The new formula would protect the state’s ability to invest and ensure that public services are protected during economic downturns. Democrats Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Millbury), and John Velis (D-Westfield) joined the five Republicans in voting no.
  • 7 to 32 to reject a Republican amendment to adopt Trumpian tax gimmicks of “no tax on overtime” and “no tax on tips” that put downward pressure on base wages and encourage anti-worker policies. Democrats Nick Collins (D-South Boston) and Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford)
  • 5 to 34 to reject a Republican amendment to eliminate estate tax, a move that would blow a major hole in the state budget and redistribute wealth upwards
  • 7 to 32 to reject a Republican amendment to reduce revenue raised from the state income tax and trigger cuts to essential public services. Democrats Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford) and John Velis (D-Westfield) joined the five Republicans in voting yes.
  • 5 to 34 to reject a Republican amendment that would have made the bill’s legalization of duplexes into a local option

Several amendments that we had supported were adopted via voice vote.

  • Amendment #18: Adjunct Faculty Special Commission, filed by Sen. Jamie Eldridge, which would create a commission to study how much it will cost to cover healthcare and retirement benefits for our adjunct professors
  • Amendment #495: Juvenile Jurisdiction, filed by Sen. Brendan Crighton, which would shift 18-year-olds into the juvenile justice system, where young people are more likely to be held accountable for their actions by engaging in education and treatment
  • Amendment #511: Requiring Automated Criminal Record Sealing, filed by Sen. Cindy Friedman, which would take away unnecessary bureaucracy in the criminal record sealing process

Sen. Pat Jehlen’s Amendment #12 (Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act) was adopted after being redrafted twice and limited to a pilot program allowing five communities to adopt ordinances granting tenants the right of first refusal to purchase their building when it goes on market.

One amendment that we supported was rejected via voice vote:

  • Amendment #193: Data Centers, filed by Sen. Vanna Howard, which would ensure that data centers cover their energy needs with clean energy and do not increase water and electric bills

And several others were simply withdrawn:

  • Amendment #224: Identification for Youth and Adults Experiencing Homelessness, filed by Sen. Robyn Kennedy, which would ease access to Massachusetts IDs for people experiencing homelessness by waiving the $25 fee for standard Mass IDs
  • Amendment #268: Fairness for Agricultural Laborers, filed by Sen. Adam Gomez, which would grant agricultural workers basic labor protections historically excluded under state law, such as minimum wage or overtime
  • Amendment #359: Midwife Reimbursement Parity, filed by Sen. Joan Lovely, which would expand access to care by ensuring equitable reimbursement rates from MassHealth for certified professional midwives

MA Senate Votes to Rein in Addictive Social Media Design

A couple months ago, the MA House advanced a harmful bill that would ban minors from social media, force social media platforms to enable parental surveillance of teenagers’ online activity, and subject everyone to privacy-invading online ID checks in order to access information or speak out online. We joined groups from across the state in opposing this language.

The Senate’s bill (S.3164), passed 38 to 2 yesterday, takes a smarter approach, targeting addictive design. Republicans Kelly Dooner and Peter Durant were the sole NO votes.

We joined our friends at Fight for the Future in urging senators to support several amendments that would protect privacy, protect youth, and help the bill better accomplish its stated goals. Most of those amendments were adopted:

  • Amendment #2, which closed a loophole in the definition of “user” that would have allowed platforms to continue providing addictive features to minors so long as the minor does not use an account to access the platform
  • Amendment #3, which updated the definition of social media so that it would exclude sites like GitHub and Wikipedia that have valuable educational purposes
  • Amendment #4, which clarified that the attorney general will be regulating interoperability of age signals and not mandating that all operating systems implement age signals
  • Amendment #24, which voided the privacy and security issues that come with obtaining parental consent, while increasing the protections for minors
  • Amendment #25, which clarified that platforms can use interaction data to generate feeds when that data functions to allow users to control the amount and types of content they receive from users they subscribe to
  • Amendment #27, which expanded the ban on tech companies’ ability to use design tactics, such as repeated nudges and grouping of settings controls, to manipulate users into choosing less protective settings
  • Amendment #29, which added important protections to minors’ data by requiring the attorney general to address issues of re-identification that could expose minors’ personal information to the public

However, the Senate rejected Amendment #19, which would have prevented companies from manipulating users into using addictive features and would have changed age verification requirements to opt-out to opt-in.

Read more here.

The MA Senate Votes 32-8 for Its Energy Bill. So What’s In It, and What’s Next?

Yesterday, the MA Senate voted to 32 to 8 for its energy bill, setting the stage for negotiations with the House.

The chamber’s five Republicans voted NO, and they were joined by Michael Brady (D-Brockton), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), and Michael Moore (D-Millbury).

The following overview of the bill is adapted from a Mass Power Forward action guide.

GOOD:

  • Preserves funding for Mass Save: This is in contrast to the House bill, which cut $1 billion from Mass Save. The Senate bill caps administrative costs at 5% and removes gas companies from administering the program. It also adjusts the scope of the program to include solar, battery storage, and other clean energy technologies that save customers money. 20% of Mass Save is designated for LMI programs, codifying in law a recent equity allocation win in the latest Mass Save 3 year plan.
  • Phases Out the Gas System Enhancement Program (GSEP): Instead, utilities would be required to do advanced leak repair where feasible, as opposed to costly and unnecessary full pipe replacements.
  • Increases Clean Energy Procurement: DOER (Department Of Energy Resources) is authorized to procure 20 GW (Gigawatts) of renewable energy, including 10 GW of solar and 10 GW of wind, by 2040. 
  • Regulates Predatory Third Party Suppliers: The bill enables municipalities to ban scammy third party electricity suppliers, who often rip off vulnerable communities with misleading offers. Third-party supply prices are capped for discount rate customers with bans on automatic renewals, cancellation fees, and variable rates.
  • Expands Geothermal: The bill authorizes gas companies to create thermal energy networks (networked geothermal) with worker protections. 
  • Reins in Utility Profiteering: The bill bars the use of ratepayer funds for promotional and political advertising; trade-association dues; charitable giving; lobbying; board/officer travel, lodging, entertainment, gifts, food/beverage, aircraft; tax penalties; non-regulated product marketing.
  • Bans Heat Wave Shut Offs: The bill bans electric shutoffs during heat waves, similar to the heating shutoff ban we have during cold weather. 
  • Promotes Gas Transition Planning: The bill requires DPU to conduct integrated energy planning to facilitate transition off gas and requires disclosure of how infrastructure investment decisions (e.g. substation constructions) are made and reduce them. 

BAD

  • Income Verification: Mass Save programs must verify household income for moderate-income rebates. This creates further bureaucratic hurdles for low and moderate-income customers, who can currently qualify for programs via self-attestation — which has been hugely successful. 
  • Mass Save Budget Caps: Mass Save budgets are capped for each 3 yr. Plan, preventing mid-budget increases. 
  • Corporate Representation in Mass Save Governance: The bill adds business representatives to the Mass Save Energy EfficiencyAdvisory Council) 
  • Short-Term Decrease in Renewable Portfolio Standard: The bill reduces the state’s annual RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standards), i.e., the requirement for utilities to build renewables, increase from 3% to 1%, for the next three years (the bill, however, increases the RPS in the long term).

A total of 183 amendments were filed, of which 67 were withdrawn, 92 were rejected, and 24 were adopted.

Of the amendments backed by Mass Power Forward, three were adopted:

  • #1 (Comerford): Protect Constituents From Unreasonable Utility Profits, which studies studies the amount of profit utilities are being allowed to get from ratepayers
  • #25 (Gomez): Addressing Biomass, which removes highly-polluting woody biomass as an eligible fuel under the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standard for Municipal Lighting plants. It passed 35-4, with Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) joining Democrats.
  • #162 (Howard): Data Center Tax Credits, which conditions such tax credits on meeting various environmental, labor, and transparency standards

Two were withdrawn:

  • #37 (Creem): Prohibition on Charging Ratepayers for Goodwill or Institutional Advertising, which prevents utilities from charging their customers for institutional advertising, which is public relations aimed at enhancing the company’s image
  • #78 (Edwards): Labor Peace for Thermal Energy Networks, which would require management to stay neutral in unionization efforts on publicly owned network geothermal projects

Four were rejected without a vote:

  • #26 (Gomez): Halting Gas Expansion, which prevents the expansion of gas infrastructure near EJ communities and plans for a just transition away from fossil fuels 
  • #62 (Howard): Data Centers, which establish safeguards around data center development for energy, water, health, and people’s bills
  • #82 (Rausch): DPU Clarification, which would remove section allowing “renewable natural gas blending” in the gas distribution system for commercial customers
  • #106 (Eldridge): Self-Attestation of Income, which keeps self-reporting for low and moderate-income households in Mass Save 

Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough)’s amendment #77, which would have prevented utilities from imposing charges on all ratepayers to cover the cost of expanding natural gas lines, failed in a close vote of 19-20.

The vote was an interesting split, particularly because of the split in Senate Leadership. Majority Leader Cindy Creem (D-Newton), President Pro Tempore Will Brownsberger (D-Belmont), Assistant Majority Leader Mike Barrett (D-Lexington), Assistant Majority Leader Sal DiDomenico (D-Everett), Majority Whip Mike Rush (D-West Roxbury), and Assistant Majority Whip Julian Cyr (D-Truro) voted yes. However, Senate Ways & Means chair Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport) and Assistant Majority Leader Joan Lovely (D-Salem) voted no.

Environmental groups were lobbying for the amendment, and real estate groups were lobbying against it. Most of the YES votes were from the Senate’s more progressive members. Surprise YES votes like Nick Collins (D-South Boston) and Mike Rush (D-West Roxbury) make sense in the context of them facing progressive primary challengers: primaries can do wonders for making elected officials pay more attention to their constituents. We should have more of them.

Of the two amendments MPF opposed, Sen. Fernandes’s amendment #114, which took money from crucial programs for low-income housing decarbonization and clean energy, was rejected without a vote, and Sen. Brady’s amendment #139, which removed the reforms to the GSEP program, was withdrawn.

Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester)’s amendment (#17) to weaken Mass Save’s next three-year plan and create a series of commissions that try to blame renewable energy for higher energy costs failed 9 to 30, with Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Millbury), and John Velis (D-Westfield) joining Republicans.

MA House Votes 153-3 to Rein in Politically Motivated Book Bans

Yesterday, the MA House voted 153 to 3 for a bill to protect school and public libraries and to rein in politically motivated book bans.

The 3 NO votes were from Republicans Donnie Berthiaume (R-Spencer), David DeCoste (R-Norwell), and John Gaskey (R-Carver).

The bill would do the following:

  • Add to the rights and responsibilities of students the right to receive information, including school library materials deemed educational and age appropriate
  • Ensure that determinations about whether materials are age appropriate be made by qualified school library professionals using their professional training and expertise, and not be based on personal, political, or doctrinal beliefs
  • Require every school district to adopt a written policy governing the selection and use of school library materials and facilities in line with standards established by the American Library Association, including a clear process for handling complaints and challenges to library materials
  • Establish a formal review process for challenged materials, in which challenged items would remain available while a review is underway and reviews are conducted by a committee appointed by the superintendent and school committee (with a hearing and a recommendation). School committees could remove materials only after determining, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the material lacks educational, literary, artistic, personal, or social value and is not age appropriate for any student attending the school. Students and parents would have the right to appeal those decisions.
  • Require public libraries to adopt and publicly post written policies governing the selection and use of library materials and facilities, which must incorporate the ALA’s Bill of Rights and ensure that materials are not selected, restricted, or removed based on personal, political, or doctrinal viewpoints
  • Protect librarians and other library professionals from disciplinary action, loss of licensure, transfer, fines, or other penalties related to the selection of library materials
  • Require an annual report on book challenges and their impacts on communities across the Commonwealth

The House voted down a Republican amendment to weaken the bill by politicizing the process of reviewing challenged books. It failed 23 to 133, with all but two Republicans voting for it and all Democrats voting against.

The House also voted down an amendment from Gaskey to strip legal protections from librarians. The vote was preceded by an unhinged rant from Gaskey in which he railed against “state-sponsored pornography.” DeCoste was the only legislator to join him on his amendment.

The Senate passed a similar bill in November, and the two chambers will soon appoint a conference committee to negotiate final text.

MA House Unanimously Passes Data Privacy Bill

On Thursday, the MA House unanimously passed the Massachusetts Consumer Data Privacy Act, establishing important new data privacy protections.

In particular, the bill would do the following:

  • Ban the sale of precise geolocation data, which is critical to prevent stalking or surveillance of individuals seeking reproductive or gender-affirming care, domestic violence survivors, workers, activists, and more
  • Require that personal data collection must be proportionate to providing requested services, and data must be protected and deleted when no longer necessary or required by law 
  • Establish rights for individuals over their online data, such as the right to access their personal information, the right to correct inaccurate information, the right to opt out of certain processes such as targeted advertising, the right to transport personal data, and the right to delete certain information.
  • Specify that sensitive data cannot be sold or shared without a user’s affirmative consent. Sensitive data includes information such as biometric or genetic information, precise geolocation data, health and wellness information, reproductive and sexual health data, data of a minor under 18, government-issued identifiers, and data that reveals an individual’s racial or ethnic origin, national origin or citizenship or immigration status, religious beliefs, sex life, sexual orientation, status as transgender or non-binary, union membership, status as a military service member or veteran, and status as a victim of a crime
  • Prohibit targeted advertising to minors 
  • Enable the AG to enforce the law but also establishes a private right of action (“If someone violates your rights, you can sue them”) to enable consumers to hold the largest data holders accountable for any violations

The MA Senate passed a similar data privacy bill in September, and the two will negotiate a final version of the bill.

The House’s bill is stronger than the Senate’s in some ways (such as the creation of a private right of action), but weaker in other ways (the Senate bill contained an outright ban on the sale of sensitive data and stronger language limiting how much data companies can collect).

During the floor debate on the bill, we had supported the following amendments:

  • #3 to reiterate that use of employer owned devices is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining, filed be Rep. Field
  • #7 to restrict employer ability to disclose employee data without express employee consent, filed by Rep. Montaño
  • #8 to limit the transfer of employee data outside of operationally necessary reasons, filed by Rep. Montaño
  • #10 to ban surveillance pricing for groceries, filed by Rep. Sabadosa
  • #13 to strengthen the definition of “affirmative consent,” filed by Rep. Sabadosa
  • #16 to fix the data minimization language, filed by Rep. Decker
  • #21 to strengthen the private right of action, filed by Rep. Cataldo
  • #33 to clarify the definition of “transfer,” filed by Rep. Rogers
  • #36 to protect LGBTQ youth data, filed by Rep. Montaño
  • #38 to strengthen the data minimization language, filed by Rep. Kilcoyne
  • #40 to strengthen the data minimization language, filed by Rep. Owens

Rather than considering each amendment in turn, the House created a single consolidated amendment that contained pieces of several amendments. It strengthened the data minimization language in the House Ways & Means bill draft, and it also ensured that the right of parents over their children’s online data would not include data related to LGBTQ identity.

MA Senate Votes 37 to 3 for the PROTECT Act

The MA Senate today voted 37 to 3 to pass the PROTECT Act, which takes important steps to protect immigrant communities in Massachusetts, such as banning new 287(g) agreements, preventing law enforcement from asking about immigration status or using resources for civil immigration enforcement, limiting information sharing with ICE, protecting courthouses and other sensitive locations, and more.

After four efforts to weaken the bill, Republicans Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth) and Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) joined Democrats in voting for it.

Bruce Tarr’s amendment to strike language giving any money received for the Department of Correction’s 287(g) agreement with ICE to the Office of Refugees and Immigrants failed 5 to 34 (party line).

His amendment to bar any entity receiving public funds for legal representation in immigration law from representing undocumented people similarly failed on a party line vote of 5 to 34. Amid attacks on due process, everyone should be entitled to representation. Legal representation can actually help people secure legal status.

Tarr’s amendment to weaken the provision banning police from asking about immigration status failed 7 to 32, with Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford) and John Velis (D-Westfield) joining Republicans.

Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton)’s amendment to allow ICE detainers, which violate due process rights as well as the Massachusetts constitution, failed 10 to 29. John Cronin (D-Fitchburg), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Millbury), and John Velis (D-Westfield) joined Republicans in voting for it.

The Senate adopted six amendments to strengthen the bill:

  • Senator Lydia Edwards (D-East Boston)’s amendments to protect the courthouse grounds as well as the insides of courthouses (#10) and to establish a commission on matters related to federal immigration enforcement in the Commonwealth (#20)
  • Senator Adam Gómez (D-Springfield)’s amendments to expedite the bill’s effective date (#7) and to broaden the definition of child care center (#34)
  • Senator Robyn Kennedy (D-Worcester)’s amendment to extend sensitive locations protections to Department of Developmental Services facilities and Mass Health Day Habilitation programs (#6)
  • Senator Liz Miranda (D-Roxbury)’s amendment to protect health care workers against retaliation for any attempts to act in good faith in following the bill’s dictates (#13)

1737 Amendments were Filed to the MA House Budget. What Happened to All of them?

Yesterday, the MA House passed its FY 2027 budget with a broadly bipartisan vote of 149 to 9. The 9 NO votes came from the more conservative wing of the House Republican Caucus.

In the lead-up to the floor debate, 1737 amendments were filed to the budget.

Most of them (1,659, or 95.5%) were dispensed with through the consolidated amendment process. House Leadership groups amendments into categories, tosses aside the actual amendments, and then negotiates a set of earmarks and policy changes that will remain in the final package.

This process produced seven consolidated amendments, five of which passed unanimously.

  • Consolidated Amendment “A” (Education & Local Aid/Social Services/Veterans)
  • Consolidated Amendment “B” (Health and Human Services & Aging and Independence)
  • Consolidated Amendment “C” (Public Safety and Judiciary)
  • Consolidated Amendment “D” (Public Health & Mental Health and Disability Services)
  • Consolidated Amendment “E” (Constitutional Officers & State Administration/Transportation)
  • Consolidated Amendment “F” (Energy and Environmental Affairs & Housing)
  • Consolidated Amendment “G” (Labor and Economic Development)

So what about the remaining 78? 48 of them were withdrawn, 29 were rejected, and one was laid aside.

26 of the 29 rejected amendments received recorded votes. All were filed and roll-called by Republicans. Let’s focus on a few in particular.

The House voted party line against various GOP amendments to drain money from the state budget, such as reducing the sales tax, reducing the state income tax, adopting Trump’s “no tax on tips” gimmick (which harms workers more than it helps), and more (Roll Calls #158 to #164).

The House voted down an amendment from Rep. Steve Xiarhos to eliminate cashless bail; the vote was 26 to 129, with Rep. Alan Silvia joining Republicans in voting for it.

Republicans brought up their favorite things to force recorded votes on: suppressing the vote with a photo ID law (27 to 131, with Rep. Colleen Garry of Dracut and Rep. Dave Robertson of Tewksbury joining Republicans), defunding No Cost Calls (26 to 132, with Rep. Garry joining Republicans), imposing citizenship requirements for housing assistance (26 to 132, with Garry joining Republicans), preventing the state from using MBTA Communities Act compliance as a condition for grant eligibility (27 to 130, with Garry and Rep. Jeff Turco of Winthrop joining Republicans), making the emergency shelter system more restrictive and more bureaucratic (26 to 131, with Garry joining Republicans), defunding Mass Save (25 to 133, party line), fear-mongering about “welfare fraud” (25 to 133 , party line), and finding new ways to collaborate with Trump’s DHS (25 to 133, party line).

MA House Passes PROTECT Act 134 to 21

Yesterday, the House passed its redraft of the PROTECT Act, the Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus’s bill to protect Massachusetts communities from increasingly lawless behavior from ICE.

The bill restricts cooperation and communication between state and local law enforcement and ICE and adds additional protections:

  • Prohibits law enforcement from inquiring about immigration status, with narrow exceptions 
  • Bars the use of state and local resources for civil immigration enforcement
  • Limits the sharing of nonpublic information and advance release notifications by banning the *initiation* of contact with ICE
  • Bans new 287(g) agreements (with very narrow exceptions), i.e., which deputize state and local law enforcement as ICE agents
  • Limits civil arrests in courthouses by requiring a judicial warrant or order, and a review by a judicial official
  • Requires that employers provide written notice to employees within 48 hours of receiving a federal immigration inspection notice, such as an I-9 audit
  • Strengthens protections for individuals in ICE detention (i.e., requiring notice of legal rights in a person’s primary language at intake, guaranteeing confidential attorney-client communication, mandating the timely tracking of custody status and transfers with notice to counsel and designated contacts; providing interpretation services for key interactions and ensure access to court proceedings)
  • Makes it easier for victims of crime and human trafficking ​to secure U and T visas, which provide a legal status that can lead to a green card 
  • Authorizes the Governor to restrict civil immigration enforcement in nonpublic areas of state facilities, and requires multilingual guidance for agencies, private entities, law enforcement, and public school districts 

The bill passed 134 to 21, with all Democrats in attendance joined by Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading), Third Assistant Minority Leader David Vieira (R-Falmouth), Marcus Vaughn (R-Wrentham), and Donald Wong (R-Saugus).

During the floor debate, the House adopted four amendments.

The House voted 130 to 25 (party line) to adopt Christine Barber (D-Somerville)’s amendment to clarify that the bill applies to sheriffs. The sheriff offices in Bristol, Plymouth, and Barnstable Counties have all previously had 287(g) agreements with ICE, and the majority of such contracts across the country are with sheriffs.

The House voted 136 to 18 for Sean Reid (D-Lynn)’s amendment to require the Governor to publish multilingual guidelines for all school districts on how to handle interactions with law enforcement officers regarding civil immigration enforcement. Joining Democrats and the four Republicans who voted for the final bill were First Assistant Minority Leader Kimberly Ferguson (R-Holden), Second Assistant Minority Leader Paul Frost (R-Auburn), and Hannah Kane (R-Shrewsbury).

The House voted 151 to 3 for Adrianne Ramos (D-North Andover)’s amendment to expedite the U and T visa certification process for applicants with a dependent who will soon age out of dependent status. Three Republicans voted no: David DeCoste (R-Norwell), John Gaskey (R-Carver), and Marcus Vaughn (R-Wrentham). Michael Soter (R-Bellingham) voted present.

The House also voted unanimously for an amendment from Brad Jones (R-North Reading) that could potentially create a new loophole in the bill, but advocates are still analyzing the implications of the text.

The bill, unfortunately, does not end the one existing 287(g) agreement in the state: the one between the Department of Correction and ICE. However, as Governor Healey remains staunchly supportive of that agreement, the legislative hurdles have become much stronger.