Home Democrats resoundingly rejected a Republican-led effort Wednesday afternoon to reform a 2017 court docket ruling that bars regulation enforcement in Massachusetts from detaining folks based mostly solely on suspected civil immigration violations.
Throughout the second day of debate on the Home’s $61 billion fiscal yr 2026 price range, lawmakers engaged in what was probably an early preview of the back-and-forth over proposed reforms to a Supreme Judicial Court docket ruling that Republicans have set their sights on this session.
Rep. Paul Frost, an Auburn Republican, unsuccessfully pushed legislators to log out on a proposal that might have allowed native regulation enforcement to detain somebody wished by federal immigration authorities for as much as 12 hours after their court docket proceedings finish.
Frost stated the modification to the state price range plan was modeled after language initially filed by former Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, and would offer a mechanism for regulation enforcement in courts to detain folks concerned in violent crimes.
“It’s unconscionable that we simply let these violent individuals go once they’re done in court. And if (U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) does put a detainer for them, we in Massachusetts will not honor it. We will not hold them,” Frost stated from the Home flooring. “We can address that today.”
However Rep. Priscilla Sousa, a Framingham Democrat, stated permitting court docket officers to carry somebody based mostly on a civil immigration detainer would have a chilling impact amongst people who find themselves not within the nation legally.
She stated her household immigrated from Brazil to the USA when she was seven years outdated. Of their quest to acquire citizenship, Sousa stated her household ended up overstaying their visa, which amounted to a civil infraction and made them undocumented.
“Our life in this country was uncertain because we lived in the shadows, and every time something like what is being proposed today was brought up, we would be less trusting of law enforcement and authorities in general. We hid at home more. We stopped interacting and investing in our community, and we stopped planning for our future,” she stated.
The modification backed by Frost, which was shot down on a 25 to 131 vote, tried to focus on a ruling from the Supreme Judicial Court docket that critics have argued supplies “sanctuary” protections to undocumented immigrants in Massachusetts and impedes the work of federal immigration officers. Supporters say the ruling units clear boundaries between state and federal officers.
A number of Republicans have filed payments this legislative time period that search to transform the ruling. Gov. Maura Healey’s secretary of public security and homeland safety stated earlier this yr that the choice is a “significant issue” that must be addressed by lawmakers.
The court docket choice has turn into a flashpoint amongst conservatives after a sequence of high-profile arrests in state-run shelters and makes an attempt by immigration authorities to take custody of people that entered the USA illegally.
In a 34-page choice issued in 2017, SJC justices wrote that native regulation enforcement don’t have the facility to carry somebody past the time they’d in any other case be launched from court docket custody solely on the premise of a civil immigration detainer issued by federal authorities.
That signifies that native regulation enforcement and court docket officers should launch folks even when ICE officers have lodged a civil immigration detainer as a part of deportation proceedings.
Detainers usually ask native authorities to carry somebody who would in any other case be entitled to launch for as much as two days to ensure that immigration officers to reach and take the individual into their custody for elimination proceedings.
Justices dominated that holding somebody in opposition to their will based mostly on a civil immigration detainer constituted an arrest below Massachusetts regulation.
The justices didn’t determine whether or not the arrests based mostly on civil detainers, in the event that they had been approved below state regulation, could be permissible below the U.S. Structure or the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
As a substitute, the justices dominated that native authorities don’t have the inherent authority to arrest somebody based mostly on a civil immigration detainer issued and largely left it as much as lawmakers to determine whether or not to additional make clear state regulation.
“The prudent course is not for this court to create, and attempt to define, some new authority for court officers to arrest that heretofore has been unrecognized and undefined. The better course is for us to defer to the Legislature to establish and carefully define that authority if the Legislature wishes that to be the law of this commonwealth,” the justices wrote within the choice.
Frost stated his modification tried to supply that clarification.
“This amendment seeks to provide that statute, provide that mechanism,” he stated. “If a violent offender is arrested, is brought to court, and is of interest to ICE, that ICE puts in a detainer for that individual, that the court can hold them up, detain them for up to 12 hours, for ICE to come and get them,” he stated.
Rep. Daniel Cahill, who co-chairs the Public Security and Homeland Safety Committee, stated there’s already cooperation between federal immigration authorities and native regulation enforcement when an individual is the topic of a prison immigration detainer.
The Lynn Democrat argued that permitting court docket officers to carry folks based mostly on civil immigration detainers would “utilize state resources to assist federal agencies in civil deportations.”
“The law says here in Massachusetts, we are not to detain someone a moment, not 12 hours, not 12 seconds. When your case is concluded, you leave,” he stated. “What the federal government wants us to do is expend resources to hold people beyond that time. That’s a constitutional problem.”
