This page is information, not legal advice. Massachusetts has multiple layers of state-level protection limiting local cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement, and the PROTECT Act was in conference committee as of mid-2026. A Citizens for Juvenile Justice report found 28 Massachusetts police departments sharing information with ICE informally despite existing protections. ICE has made hundreds of courthouse arrests in Massachusetts. Verify current conditions with the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA), Lawyers for Civil Rights, or a licensed immigration attorney.
Massachusetts has some of the strongest state-level protections against local immigration enforcement cooperation in the country, built across multiple years and legal frameworks. The 2017 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in Lunn v. Commonwealth established that local law enforcement has no authority to hold someone solely on a civil immigration detainer without authorization. Governor Healey issued Executive Order 650 in January 2026, limiting state agency participation in 287(g) agreements and barring ICE from making civil arrests in non-public areas of state facilities. And the PROTECT Act - sweeping legislation restricting local cooperation with civil immigration enforcement - passed the Massachusetts House 134-21 in March 2026 and the Senate 37-3 in May 2026, with the two chambers in conference to reconcile their versions as of mid-2026.
These protections exist alongside a documented reality: ICE has made at least 614 arrests at Massachusetts trial courts in 2025. A 2026 report by Citizens for Juvenile Justice found 28 Massachusetts police departments cooperating informally with ICE through information sharing and other practices not formally prohibited under existing state law. Boston and other cities with strong sanctuary ordinances have faced federal pressure. Massachusetts is a protective state with active federal enforcement operating within it - the same tension that families need to understand in every protective state.
Part 1: Your rights under federal law - everywhere, including Massachusetts
These rights come from the U.S. Constitution. They apply in Massachusetts regardless of immigration status, citizenship, or how you entered the country.
At your front door
The Fourth Amendment protects your home from government entry without your consent or a judicial warrant. Two very different documents may come to your door.
A judicial warrant is signed by a federal judge, based on probable cause, and authorizes entry to a specific address. If ICE presents a valid judicial warrant with your correct address and a judge's signature, officers have legal authority to enter. Ask to see it through a closed door or window before opening.
An administrative warrant, typically ICE Form I-200 or I-205, is signed by an immigration officer, not a judge. An administrative warrant does not authorize ICE to enter your home without your consent. You do not have to open the door. Ask through the door which type of warrant they have. If it is administrative, you are not required to let them in.
During a traffic stop or street encounter
You have the right to remain silent. You do not have to answer questions about where you were born, your immigration history, or your status. You can say you are exercising your right to remain silent and want to speak to a lawyer. You can ask whether you are free to go. If the officer says yes, you may calmly leave.
Do not lie and do not provide false documents. Silence is a legal right. False statements are a separate crime. Many families carry a printed card asserting these rights.
At your workplace
ICE may enter public areas of a workplace without a warrant. Private, non-public areas generally require a judicial warrant or employer consent. You have the right to remain silent in any workplace encounter.
Under the PROTECT Act provisions already under consideration, employers would be required to give workers 48 hours' notice after ICE notifies them of a planned I-9 employment eligibility inspection. Whether this provision is in final law as of mid-2026 should be verified with current sources.
Do not sign anything without a lawyer
Documents presented during an ICE arrest may include voluntary departure agreements or stipulated removal orders that waive your right to a hearing before an immigration judge. Do not sign anything without speaking to an attorney first.
Part 2: The Lunn decision - Massachusetts courts cannot hold on civil detainers
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's 2017 decision in Lunn v. Commonwealth is the foundational protection in Massachusetts state law. The court held that Massachusetts law enforcement officers have no legal authority to arrest or detain someone solely on the basis of a federal civil immigration detainer, unless authorized by state law to protect public safety.
What this means practically: if you are arrested in Massachusetts and ICE files a detainer asking the jail to hold you beyond your release date, Massachusetts law enforcement has no state law authority to honor that hold unless there is a criminal warrant. This is different from states that treat detainers as legally binding. In Massachusetts, a civil immigration detainer is a request that local agencies are not authorized to honor under the Lunn decision.
Lunn covers the detention authority of local officers. It does not cover information sharing, which is why the subsequent gap in information-sharing practices has been documented and why the PROTECT Act is designed to address it.
Part 3: Executive Order 650 - January 2026
Governor Healey issued Executive Order 650 on January 29, 2026, establishing rules for state executive branch agencies regarding immigration enforcement cooperation. The order prohibits state executive branch offices and agencies from entering into any new 287(g) agreements unless approved in writing by the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, which must certify the agreement is based on a specific, articulable public safety need.
EO 650 also prohibits ICE from making civil immigration arrests in non-public areas of state facilities and bars the use of state property for immigration enforcement staging. The state Department of Correction was allowed to maintain its existing 287(g) agreement.
EO 650 applies to state executive branch agencies. It does not directly govern independent local agencies, which operate under their own policies and are primarily governed by the Lunn decision and whatever the final PROTECT Act provides.
Part 4: The PROTECT Act - in conference as of mid-2026
The PROTECT Act is the most significant immigration legislation Massachusetts has considered in decades. The House passed its version 134-21 in March 2026 and the Senate passed its version 37-3 in May 2026. As of mid-2026, the two chambers were in conference committee to reconcile differences, with a deadline of early January 2027 to pass a compromise and send it to Governor Healey.
What both versions contain
Both the House and Senate versions of the PROTECT Act prohibit local law enforcement from inquiring about immigration status unless directly material to a specific criminal offense. Both ban civil immigration arrests in courthouses without a judicial warrant. Both expand protections for crime victims who cooperate with law enforcement and restrict local resources from being used for civil immigration enforcement. Both prohibit new 287(g) agreements while allowing the state Department of Correction to maintain its existing agreement.
Key differences between the versions
The House bill restricts warrantless civil arrests only in courthouses. The Senate bill extends that protection to courthouses, schools, child care facilities, houses of worship, and hospitals. The Senate bill also creates a private right of action allowing individuals to sue under state law for constitutional violations - the House did not include this. The House bill spelled out requirements for jails around legal access, interpreter services, and a public detainee locator. The Senate did not. The final compromise will determine which provisions apply. Verify the enacted version with current sources.
What the PROTECT Act will not do
Neither version of the PROTECT Act can stop ICE from operating in Massachusetts. Federal agents do not need local cooperation to make arrests anywhere in the state. The Act limits what state and local agencies do, not what ICE does directly.
Part 5: The documented informal cooperation gap
A 2026 report by Citizens for Juvenile Justice, based on public records requests, found that 28 Massachusetts police departments cooperate with ICE informally in ways not directly prohibited by existing protections. Many departments automatically fingerprint arrestees - including people charged only with misdemeanors and juveniles - and those fingerprints are shared with the FBI, which feeds them into databases accessible to ICE.
Quincy is one of the 28 departments documented as having a policy requiring officers to conduct immigration checks. Chelsea - home to a large immigrant population with significant ICE presence - was among those automatically fingerprinting arrestees beyond state legal requirements. Boston applied for a Department of Homeland Security grant in 2025 with terms requiring that a portion of funds be spent supporting collaboration between local law enforcement and ICE.
These practices are in the gap between what the Lunn decision prohibited (holding on detainers without warrant authority) and what the PROTECT Act is designed to close (information sharing, informal cooperation). Families in Massachusetts should understand that formal sanctuary city policies and the Lunn decision do not eliminate all informal channels through which local agencies can facilitate federal enforcement.
Part 6: Courthouse arrests - a documented enforcement pattern
ICE made at least 614 arrests at Massachusetts trial courts in 2025. This practice - arresting people when they come to court for hearings, whether as defendants, witnesses, or victims - has deterred immigrants from participating in the justice system. District attorneys and the Trial Court have pushed back, citing its effect on public safety when crime witnesses and victims are afraid to appear.
The Lunn decision addresses local officers' authority to detain on civil detainers. It does not stop ICE agents from waiting at courthouses and making direct arrests. Both versions of the PROTECT Act contain courthouse protections requiring a judicial warrant for civil immigration arrests at trial courts. Those provisions would provide significant protection if enacted. Verify whether the final PROTECT Act is law and whether courthouse protections are included before relying on them.
Part 7: Sanctuary cities - Boston, Somerville, Chelsea, and others
Massachusetts has multiple cities with formal sanctuary policies that predate state law. Boston has had sanctuary ordinances since the 1980s, expanded its protections in 2025, and the city's police department does not participate in civil immigration enforcement. Somerville adopted a sanctuary policy in 1987. Chelsea, despite its significant immigrant population and documented ICE presence in the area, has had sanctuary policies since 2007 and does not participate in 287(g) agreements.
Other Massachusetts cities with sanctuary postures include Lowell, Lawrence, Springfield, and New Bedford - cities with large immigrant populations. The protection offered by local sanctuary policies is real but does not stop ICE from conducting direct enforcement in those communities.
Part 8: What to do right now, before anything happens
Know your A-number and make sure trusted family members have it written down. It is on any prior immigration document.
Understand that under the Lunn decision, local Massachusetts police cannot hold you solely on a civil immigration detainer. If you are arrested and processed by a local agency, they do not have state law authority to hold you for ICE beyond your release unless there is a criminal warrant. This protection applies across the state.
Understand that ICE operates independently and courthouse arrests have occurred at scale in Massachusetts. The protections that exist limit local participation; they do not stop direct federal enforcement.
Identify an immigration attorney before you need one. Massachusetts has one of the largest immigration legal services ecosystems in the country, including MIRA, Lawyers for Civil Rights, Greater Boston Legal Services, and many others.
Prepare guardianship documents for any children. Massachusetts law allows parents facing detention or deportation to pre-arrange guardianship - a provision included in both versions of the PROTECT Act. Governor Healey's administration has published resources on this.
Set up a financial power of attorney so a trusted person can manage accounts and property if you are detained.
Part 9: Legal help and resources in Massachusetts
The Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA) is the leading statewide immigrant advocacy organization and a central resource for information on the current legal and enforcement landscape. Their website is miracoalition.org.
Lawyers for Civil Rights provides free immigration legal services and has been actively engaged in enforcement response in Massachusetts. Their website is lawyersforcivilrights.org.
Greater Boston Legal Services provides free civil legal services to low-income people in the greater Boston area, including immigration matters. Their website is gbls.org.
The Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project (PAIR) provides free legal representation to detained immigrants in Massachusetts. Their website is pairproject.org.
The ACLU of Massachusetts monitors enforcement conditions and publishes know-your-rights resources. Their website is aclum.org.
Massachusetts provides $5 million in state funding for an immigration legal defense fund, reflecting the Commonwealth's commitment to legal representation for immigrants facing enforcement.
For immigration court case information, call the EOIR automated line at 1-800-898-7180. To locate someone in ICE custody, use the ICE Online Detainee Locator at locator.ice.gov. Massachusetts detainees may be held at the Suffolk County Jail, Bristol County House of Correction, or transferred to other facilities. Call the ICE Detention Reporting and Information Line at 1-888-351-4024 if your person does not appear in the locator.
Immigration Advocates Network lists Massachusetts legal providers at immigrationadvocates.org.
Massachusetts has some of the strongest existing and emerging state-level protections against local immigration enforcement cooperation in the country. The Lunn decision prohibits detainer holds without warrant authority. EO 650 limits state agency 287(g) agreements. The PROTECT Act - pending final conference committee resolution - would ban new 287(g) agreements, restrict information sharing, and require judicial warrants for civil arrests in courthouses and other sensitive locations. None of these protections stop ICE from operating directly in Massachusetts. Courthouse arrests, informal information sharing, and direct federal enforcement have all occurred at scale. Knowing your rights, knowing which protections apply to which entities, and having legal contacts before a crisis are the foundations for protecting your family here.
This page reflects conditions as of mid-2026. The PROTECT Act passed the House 134-21 in March and the Senate 37-3 in May 2026. As of mid-2026 it was in conference committee with a deadline of early January 2027. The final enacted version and whether Governor Healey signed it should be verified with MIRA or the ACLU of Massachusetts.