Massachusetts law prevents local police from enforcing federal immigration detainers, a stance backed by state legal precedent and reflected in local policing practices.
This issue resurfaced after a Department of Justice memo, obtained by CBS News, directed federal employees to ramp up immigration enforcement and investigate state or local resistance to federal policies.
The 2017 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in Lunn v. Commonwealth remains central to the state’s approach.
The court ruled that local officers lack the legal authority to arrest or detain individuals solely based on federal immigration detainers. According to Professor Dina Haynes of Yale Law School, “ICE is effectively asking local law enforcement to take on the role of holding someone for an unconstitutional period of time” (CBS Boston, Kristina Rex).
Federal immigration detainers typically request local law enforcement agencies to hold individuals beyond their criminal sentences so Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can take custody and initiate deportation proceedings. However, Massachusetts law makes it clear that this is a federal responsibility, not one for local or state agencies.
Watertown Police Chief Justin Hanrahan reinforced this distinction, emphasizing that his department does not enforce federal immigration laws or participate in immigration raids. “Our role is to enforce local and state law, not federal law, and that’s what the federal agencies are there for,” he explained. Chief Hanrahan added that his primary focus is ensuring community safety and encouraging all residents, regardless of immigration status, to report crimes without fear. “I want [residents] to feel comfortable and safe coming to us if there’s a problem,” he said (CBS Boston).
Hanrahan clarified that when ICE makes voluntary detainer requests, his department adheres to the law. “We’ll say we arrested them, they’re eligible for bail, [we’ll] bring them to court, and then that’s as far as our role is,” he stated. Federal agencies take over from that point, as reported by CBS Boston.
The division of responsibilities between state and federal law enforcement is well-established. “States and cities do, under the law, have the ability to resist federal law enforcement,” Professor Haynes explained. She added that the Supreme Court has consistently supported the principle that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, not one that can be imposed on local jurisdictions.
Governor Maura Healey echoed this stance, stating, “Officials here follow the law. We are not a sanctuary state.” While Massachusetts works to prosecute crimes committed within its borders, undocumented immigrants not accused of crimes fall outside the purview of local enforcement.
If the Trump administration intensifies efforts to penalize states like Massachusetts for not involving local law enforcement in immigration enforcement, it may face legal challenges. Haynes suggested that such actions could lead to lawsuits from states seeking to protect their autonomy and adhere to constitutional principles.
As Massachusetts continues to prioritize its legal obligations and community trust, the balance between state and federal jurisdictions remains a critical issue in the ongoing immigration debate.
