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

Here’s What You Should Ask Your State Legislators If You See Them This Holiday Weekend

It’s the first week of July, and that means two things.

(1) We’re now in the last month of the formal legislative session, which tends to feature a flurry of activity as long-awaited priorities emerge, deals get cut, and more.

(2) Lots of July 4th activities, especially for the 250th.

So across this weekend, you might end up bumping into your state representative or state senator. Here’s what you should ask them.

(1) Protecting Our Immigrant Communities: Tell them to ask Legislative Leadership to ensure that the final version of the PROTECT Act contains a clean ban on new 287(g) agreements, without exception; contains strong and clear limitations on communication and collaboration with ICE; and bans courthouse arrests, including on courthouse grounds. Email Your State Legislators

(2) Protecting Our Privacy Rights: Tell them to ask Legislative Leadership to ensure that the final version of the Data Privacy bill completely bans the sale of sensitive data and location data, creates strong statutory limits on data collection and processing, and includes a private right of action to hold companies accountable. Email Your State Legislators

(3) Keeping Momentum for Rent Control: Urge them not to abandon the momentum for a rent control deal. Real progress was made to protect communities from displacement, and we shouldn’t let the SJC ruling on the ballot question to get in the way. Email Your State Legislators.

PM Priorities for the PROTECT Act

Tuesday, June 23, 2026

Honorary Members of the Conference Committee:

Thank you for your dedication to advancing pro-immigrant legislation through the Massachusetts legislature this session. We are grateful to the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus, and to the leadership of both chambers, for shepherding this important legislation. 

Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide, multi-issue grassroots advocacy organization, with chapters across the Commonwealth, committed to fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Commonwealth. We write to convey our strong support for the PROTECT Act, which includes many urgently needed protections for immigrant communities. 

First, we strongly support the inclusion of protections for inmates and detained immigrants, such as access to phone calls and notice of rights. We are also grateful for the protections for schools, health facilities, and places of worship, which are sensitive locations that are crucial for our communities.  

We respectfully urge the conference committee to include the following provisions in the final bill:

1. A ban on new 287(g) agreements, without exceptions. A clean ban would build community trust by reassuring immigrants that state and local law enforcement will never be enlisted to help the federal government’s mass deportation agenda, and it would be in line with similar laws in ten other states. 

2. Clear limits on collaboration and communication with ICE. We strongly support the provisions in both House and Senate bills that prohibit the use of state or local resources for immigration enforcement and the initiation of communications with ICE. Specifying what conduct is prohibited–such as actively participating in immigration enforcement; interrogating and investigating individuals on behalf of ICE; and holding individuals on ICE detainers (codification of the Lunn decision)–would eliminate confusion and ensure uniform interpretation across the state. In addition, while both the House and Senate bills prohibit law enforcement from initiating contact with ICE, we urge you to include procedural safeguards around this communication to prevent fishing expeditions. 

3. Ending courthouse arrests. We strongly support a ban on civil arrests in courthouses, the location of over 600 ICE arrests in 2025. In order to be effective, the ban should extend to the courthouse grounds as well as the courthouse interior;otherwise, ICE will simply wait outside to make these arrests. If our courthouses are not safe spaces, then there is no meaningful access to justice. 

Thank you again for your time and work on this important issue. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts

Support & Strengthen the PROTECT Act

he MA Senate is voting tomorrow on the PROTECT Act (S.3072), 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.

The MA Senate has the opportunity to strengthen the bill by adopting the following amendments:

  • Amendment #7 (Gómez): Effective Date Support, which reduces the implementation timeline of the provisions limiting law enforcement collaboration with ICE from 180 days to 30 days from passage
  • Amendment #10 (Edwards): Courthouse Curtilage Support, which extends courthouse protections to the walkways, alleys, driveways, and sidewalks adjacent to the courthouse plus 300 additional feet
  • Amendment #11 (Eldridge): Protect Immigrant Victims of Crime and Trafficking, which helps immigrant victims get faster decisions on certifications they need to apply for immigration relief, especially if they are facing deportation, and makes it clear they can get legal support
  • Amendment #55 (Brady): Language Access and Community Education, which requires translation of model policies for sensitive locations in the Commonwealth’s top 5 languages and requires annual Know Your Rights trainings at schools and covered health care providers.

Can you send your state senator an email in support?(Or leave them a message?)

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.

The House Redrafted the PROTECT Act. How is the new bill different?

On Friday, the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee reported out a redraft of the PROTECT Act, the Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus’s bill to strengthen protections for immigrant communities in Mass.

Original: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/H5158 

Redraft: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/H5293 

The bill is a mashup of the PROTECT Act and Healey’s bill. For example, it takes language around protecting courthouses from Healey’s bill, not the PROTECT Act  (see comparison chart here).

PROTECT 2.0 eliminates the following provisions of PROTECT 1.0: 

  • The section requiring disclosure of ICE or CBP employment in the POST certification process 
  • Several of the protections for individuals in ICE detention
    • The guarantee of 1 free telephone call within the first 2 hours of ICE detention 
    • The requirement that detention facilities maintain a “secure electronic locator system” for detained individuals, replacing it with a less specific requirement for record-keeping. 
    • The guarantee that detained individuals will be provided access to legal services organizations 
    • The requirement that a public hotline enabling people to identify individuals in custody have hours “sufficient to provide timely location confirmation” 
  • Some of the language banning communication between state and local law enforcement and ICE:
    • The ban on communication with ICE, as opposed to simply “initiation” of contact.
    • The ban on “ facilitat[ing] a transfer timed to enable a federal civil immigration enforcement action”  
    • (BUT the language does remove the conditional descriptor of “primary” in its ban on the “use state or local resources for the purpose of facilitating a federal civil immigration enforcement action”) 
  • The expansion of agencies able to certify individuals for U and T visas to include the executive office of the trial court and the juvenile court department; the department of children and families; the executive office of labor and workforce development and any agency within the secretariat with authority over wage and hour, workplace safety, unemployment insurance or labor standards; the Massachusetts commission against discrimination; and any other state or local agency designated by regulation of the secretary of public safety and security in consultation with the attorney general.

PROTECT 2.0 adds the following provisions: 

  • A requirement that employers provide notice to employees within 48 hours of notice of an upcoming ICE workplace raid (“I9 inspection”) 
  • Inclusion of “the likelihood of imminent deportation” to the factors considered at a bail hearing, which could lead to immigration status being treated as an indicator flight risk in and of itself and could exacerbate racial disparities in bail hearing outcomes 
  • Directive to Governor Maura Healey’s administration to create rules around locations where ICE agents would be prohibited and multilingual guidelines for state agencies about how to comply (A watered down version of Healey’s “sensitive locations” language) 

Neither PROTECT 1.0 nor PROTECT 2.0 did the following: 

  • Ban future 287(g) agreements between sheriffs and ICE. More than sixty percent of 287(g) agreements around the country are signed by sheriffs. 
  • Provide a clean ban on 287(g) agreements, as opposed to one with a series of conditions. The conditions in the bill are designed to never be met, but other states have done clean bans.
  • Terminate the one existing 287(g) agreement in the state, i.e., the DOC contract, of which Governor Maura Healey has been a staunch defender.
  • End ICE detention in Massachusetts (e.g., “shutting down Plymouth detention center”) 

Find some more detailed textual analysis here.

Follow-up Links (Video, Slides, & More) from “Spring Forward: How MA Can Stand Up to ICE” Webinar

Thank you so much to everyone who joined us today! We are doing another “Spring Forward” webinar next Wednesday about opting out of Trump’s regressive corporate tax cuts. Learn more and RSVP here.

Watch last night’s event here:

Find Laura Rotolo’s slides here.

Some links Laura mentioned: 

PROTECT Act Hearing (3/18) 

Email Your Legislators / Gov. Healey

Call Your Legislators 

  • Find your legislators’ numbers at https://scorecard.progressivemass.com/. 
  • Quick phone script: “Please take urgent action to protect Massachusetts communities from ICE. We need to join other states in banning 287(g) collaboration agreements that deputize state and local law enforcement as ICE and ban informal collaboration between state and local law enforcement and ICE.” 

Call Gov. Healey

  • Phone Number:  (617) 725-4005 (only available 9 to 5) 
  • Quick phone script: “Please tell Gov. Healey MA needs to stop collaborating with ICE. I appreciated that she signed an executive order to ban new 287(g) agreements with state agencies, but we need to ban all such agreements, including the existing one with the Department of Correction.” 

Area Residents Hold Candelight Vigil to Protest ICE

John Kyriakis, “Area Residents Hold Candelight Vigil to Protest ICE,” Dedham Times, March 6, 2026.

On a cold, rainy evening, Thursday March 5th , approximately 60 people from Neponset Valley Progressives and the Dedham Democratic Town Committee held a candlelight vigil, in front of the First Church and Parish, to protest the ongoing actions of ICE/CBP in our communities and to commemorate those killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection (ICE/CBP). Protesters gathered with signs. The bells of the First Church rang, once for each person killed by ICE/CBP action. Participants gathered to sing as well.

March 5 holds special significance as it is the anniversary of the Boston Massacre when patriots took a stand against the oppression of King George III. The protesters point out that the lawlessness and authoritarianism of the Trump administration have facilitated ICE and CBP violence.

ICE/CBP is arresting people and incarcerating them without due process, and searching private property without judicial warrants. This is unconstitutional. ICE/CBP is now adopting AI and other surveillance tech to spy not only on immigrants,
but on protesters who oppose ICE/CBP actions.

In addition to Renee Good and Alex Pretti, 40 people (32 in ICE custody, 8 in ICE “incidents”) have been killed by ICE/CBP, Thus far, ICE/CBP has arrested 328,000 people and detained close to 65,000—including children. Despite claims from the Trump
administration that it is rounding up the “worst of the worst,” fewer than 14% of those arrested have been convicted of violent crimes. According to Trac (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse) 73% held in ICE detention have no criminal record;
and as of Feb 7, 2026 many of those convicted committed minor offenses, including traffic violations.

Op-Ed: Our State Legislators Must Protect Our Human Rights by Sponsoring the Safe Communities Act

Heather Ford, “Op Ed: Our State Legislators Must Protect Our Human Rights by Sponsoring the Safe Communities Act,” Westwood Minute, March 6, 2026.

ICE’s (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) actions are making our community less safe: from the murders of Minnesota’s Renee Good and Alex Pretti, to the detainment of Milford teen Marcelo Gomes da Silva. The Burlington ICE facility that held Gomes da Silva is a mere twenty-five miles from Westwood.

ICE was founded in 2003 as part of the Homeland Security Act. Paradoxically, the above actions make my homes of Massachusetts and America less secure. The right to a trial and freedom from arbitrary arrest are human rights named in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Here in Massachusetts, resistance and dissent are baked into our pedigree: we are the home of the Boston Tea Party and the “shot heard ‘round the world” in Concord. This historic resistance has not met this moment. States like California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington have all passed legislation to prevent state and local law enforcement from collaborating with ICE. ICE is pressuring local police departments to sign up for its 287(g) program, which turns street-level officers into ICE agents. Massachusetts is the only state with a Democratic governor and Democratic legislature to still have a statewide 287(g) agreement with ICE.

Governor Healey and Beacon Hill legislators are finally getting the memo that the public wants to see action. But it matters that we pass legislation that meets this unprecedented moment.

Massachusetts law enforcement must never assist ICE in making civil immigration arrests (taking people into custody when no crime has been committed) or ask members of the public about their immigration status.

Neither Westwood’s State Representative Paul McMurtry nor its State Senator Mike Rush have sponsored the Safe Communities Act (H2580/S1681). The Safe Communities Act limits local and state police collaboration with federal immigration agents, bars law enforcement and court personnel from inquiring about immigration status, protects access to justice in our courts, and ensures due process protections. Immigrant workers, survivors of domestic and sexual assault, and tenants must feel safe reporting crimes, abuse, or exploitation without fear of deportation. I urge my neighbors to contact Rep McMurtry and Sen Rush about this Act.

Testimony: “The Best Time to Ban Collaboration with ICE is Yesterday. The Second Best Time is Now.”

Thursday, March 4, 2026

Chair Cahill and Members of the House Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security:

Thank you so much for holding today’s public forum. I am submitting testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. PM is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

Since taking office, Donald Trump has made it his mission to terrorize immigrant communities across the country, including here in the Commonwealth. The violent, reckless, and blatantly racist nature of ICE activities have been making communities less safe. They are not enforcing laws; they are violating them with abandon and impunity, a secret police that is occupying cities, engaging in large-scale racial profiling, and committing murder.

We appreciate the work that the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus has put into the creation of the PROTECT Act (H.5158). Good policy comes from consulting both people on the ground and policy experts, and they have done this to put together a multi-part bill addressing problems that have gotten worse and problems that have newly arisen.

The most important action that Massachusetts can take right now is to establish clearly in our laws that our state and local law enforcement will not be collaborating formally or informally with ICE.

First, Massachusetts must ensure that our state and local law enforcement are never deputized as ICE agents. Despite the massive infusions of money into ICE, Trump knows that he cannot achieve his full detention and deportation agenda on the basis of existing staffing: he needs state and local law enforcement to do the work for him to extend reach. Since Trump took office, we have seen a rapid rise in the number of 287(g) agreements across the country. We must be proactive in ensuring that these agreements do not spread across Massachusetts.

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington have all taken action. We should too, and we should follow their lead in passing a ban without any loopholes.

Second, we need to ensure that our local law enforcement are not assisting ICE. When the line between local public safety officials and federal immigration enforcement get blurred, communities become less safe.

The PROTECT Act’s ban on police asking about immigration status is critical in this regard. When people fear that reporting a crime could lead to the deportation of themselves or a loved one, then they will be less likely to do so, and that will tip the scales in abusive power dynamics–whether abusive spouses, exploitative bosses, predatory landlords, or more.

Similarly, we support the bill’s prohibition on police and court staff sharing non-public information with ICE and the prohibition on the use of state and local resources for the primary purpose of facilitating civil immigration enforcement–although removing the word “primary” will close what could become a dangerous and exploitable loophole.

The PROTECT Act’s protections are critical, and they must extend to all levels of law enforcement, including state agencies, municipalities, and county sheriffs. The majority of 287(g) agreements around the country are signed by sheriffs. We used to have such county-level agreements, and we need to make sure none of them come back.

Let’s be clear: the best time to ban collaboration with ICE is yesterday. The second best time is today.

Finally, if we want to have a justice system in this country, then people need to feel safe going to courthouses, whether as a plaintiff, as a defendant, or as a witness. We support the protections of courthouses because they make sure that due process, a bedrock right, still exists.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts