Bill to Restrict ICE Interactions Advances in Massachusetts

Editor’s Note: Para la versión en español de este artículo, visita El Planeta.

BOSTON — On a September morning in Chelsea, Massachusetts, a lawful permanent resident mother drove her two U.S.-citizen children to the courthouse to accompany a family member to a hearing. 

A complaint by Lawyers for Civil Rights said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents pulled her from the car and handcuffed her in front of her children, briefly removing and questioning her 13-year-old son. Agents attempted to place her in an unmarked vehicle but released her after police confirmed her lawful status. 

Videos about the incident are here.

Immigration enforcement around courthouses has become increasingly common, particularly in a city like Chelsea, where close to 50 percent of residents are foreign-born, raising concerns across Massachusetts about ICE activity. According to data from the Massachusetts Trial Court system, ICE made at least 614 arrests in state courthouses in 2025, more than double the 282 recorded in 2024. In just the first two months of 2026, another 137 arrests have already been documented.

In response, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed the PROTECT Act on March 25. The bill, which garnered a 134-21 vote, was introduced by Rep. Judith Garcia, who represents Chelsea, and the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus, including Chair Rep. Andy Vargas. The proposed legislation aims to establish statewide rules governing interactions with federal immigration enforcement and limit civil arrests in courthouses by requiring a judicial warrant and review. It still requires Senate approval before it can be signed into law.

WBUR reported on Monday that “Massachusetts Senate Democrats plan to include more money for a legal defense program to help immigrants facing deportation in a supplemental spending bill slated for release Thursday morning.” That story did not mention the PROTECT Act.

When it comes to the PROTECT Act, Beacon Hill proponents said that this is the furthest a bill of this kind has advanced in the state, whose immigrant share of the population stands at over 18% or about 1,275,000 immigrant residents.

“As members of the Black and Latino Caucus here in the House of Representatives, along with our colleagues in the Senate who are part of the group, we take great pride in reaching this moment. We know that many people have been advocating for legislation like this for decades, and now we have finally arrived at this point. We are building on the efforts of those who came before us, and we are working to carry that legacy forward,” Vargas said on March 25, when the PROTECT Act passed the House.

Massachusetts lawmakers have acknowledged the urgency and have been pursuing multiple approaches to limit how local and state agencies interact with federal immigration enforcement.

Earlier in January, 24 hours after the PROTECT Act was introduced, Governor Maura Healey announced a separate immigration-protection package supported by the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA) and the Governor’s Advisory Council on Latino Empowerment.

Executive Order No. 650, Healey noted, was “to keep ICE out of our schools, day cares, other child care centers, churches, hospitals, health clinics and our courthouses,” adding that the goal was to “restore trust in government.” 

According to Healey, judges have told her the enforcement activity has had broader effects on the court system, including that some people charged with crimes are not showing up and cases are not moving forward, which she said raises public safety concerns.

For Vargas, the PROTECT Act legislation built on the governor’s executive order by adding stronger protections for immigrants. When the bill passed the House in March, he described the governor’s action as a positive step but said the PROTECT Act would go further in strengthening safeguards for immigrant communities.

He added that the measure would prohibit local police and state agencies from contacting ICE with the intent of deporting individuals who do not have criminal cases in their communities. Vargas emphasized that the legislation is an immediate response to residents' needs, including those currently being detained.

Before the March 25 vote, the House held its 28th formal session that same day, where lawmakers debated the PROTECT Act.

Republican State Rep. John Gaskey of Carver introduced Amendment 2, part of the House’s standard process for modifying legislation through proposed changes. Gaskey’s amendment sought to add language referencing immigration judges within the Executive Office for Immigration Review, arguing that the bill should more explicitly recognize federal authority over immigration enforcement.

Gaskey said the legislation addresses issues related to illegal immigration and cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Urias-Orellana v. Bondi (March 4, 2026), to argue that immigration court decisions carry the force of law and should be treated as binding. From his perspective, state agencies are required to recognize federal immigration warrants and jurisdiction. Failing to do so could put Massachusetts at odds with constitutional obligations, according to Gaskey.

While amendments allow lawmakers to shape and challenge legislation, their adoption ultimately depends on support from House leadership and the majority of members. In this case, the PROTECT Act advanced with backing from Democratic leadership, including House Speaker Ronald J. Mariano, who plays a key role in determining which proposals move forward.

Mariano said the legislation progressed in response to heightened federal immigration enforcement and its impact on public trust.

“Since the beginning of President Trump’s second term, ICE and Border Patrol agents have continued to harass and disappear innocent Americans with total impunity — a reckless approach that has led to the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and to children being separated from their families,” Mariano said. “Those actions have immigrants in Massachusetts living in fear as they go to work or bring their children to school, and they jeopardize the trust that local law enforcement has worked hard to build.”

Rep. Garcia said her district in Chelsea has been especially impacted, particularly in local courts.

“There have already been 57 incidents where federal agents have arrested people who are going to court for cases that have absolutely nothing to do with immigration,” she said, referring to cases as of the end of March.

At the same time, proponents explained that they had to work within the limits of what the state can legally do, especially when it comes to immigration, which is largely governed at the federal level. Because of that, they said the bill had to be carefully written to ensure it is both legally sound and enforceable.

In Chelsea, Councilor Manuel Teshe said the focus now should be on coordination among leaders. 

“We’ve seen other states try to expand protections and still lose that fight,” he told The Latino Newsletter and El Planeta, arguing that without federal cooperation, enforcement ultimately becomes the central challenge.

Rosanna Marinelli is a multimedia correspondent for The Latino Newsletter and the News Editor at El Planeta.

The Latino Newsletter is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Help us reach our $100,000 goal to fund our podcast’s third season and to offer more opportunities for journalists to file their stories without paywalls or paid subscriptions.

New Podcast Episode: Over at our YouTube channel, Season 2, Episode 14 of our podcast. Michelle Zacarias welcomes Butch Ware to the show.

Julio Ricardo Varela edited and published this edition of The Latino Newsletter.

Consider donating to The Latino Newsletter. Any contribution, no matter how small, helps keep this newsletter free and accessible to all. ¡Gracias mil!