by Brian Garvey
Governor Maura Healey has taken meaningful steps to limit the role of federal immigration enforcement in Massachusetts. Through executive orders and administrative guidance, her administration has drawn clearer lines between state institutions and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Those actions matter. But they are also incomplete — and, critically, they rely heavily on executive authority rather than enforceable law. That is why the PROTECT Act remains necessary.
Since taking office, Governor Healey has barred Massachusetts from entering into any new 287(g) agreements, which allow state or local agencies to act as federal immigration agents. This prevents the formal deputization of state institutions for federal enforcement purposes.
Her administration has also prohibited civil immigration arrests in state buildings without a judicial warrant, making clear that administrative ICE warrants alone do not authorize arrests on state property. ICE, DHS, and CBP are further barred from staging operations or stationing personnel on state property, limiting the use of Massachusetts facilities as federal enforcement bases.
In addition, the state has issued guidance to public and private service providers outlining their rights when interacting with immigration authorities. This guidance is particularly important for schools, hospitals, courthouses, and places of worship, where fear of enforcement can deter people from accessing essential services or participating in civic life.
Taken together, these measures establish an important baseline: absent a judge’s warrant, federal immigration authorities do not have open access to state institutions.
Governor Healey has also proposed legislation to codify some of these protections, including explicit limits on ICE activity in schools, child care programs, courthouses, and places of worship, and restrictions on the deployment of out-of-state National Guard units into Massachusetts without gubernatorial approval. Because these measures require legislative action, they remain proposals rather than law.
That distinction is central to the current debate.
Executive orders and administrative guidance can be changed, narrowed, or rescinded by future administrations. Even well-intentioned policies depend on compliance and interpretation. Communities that rely on these protections remain vulnerable to shifts in political leadership.
The PROTECT Act (HD.5608), filed by the Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus, is designed to address those vulnerabilities by placing key protections into statute.
The bill would prohibit state and local officials from sharing non-public personal information with ICE, DHS, or CBP unless required by a judicial warrant. It would also bar law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status, except where explicitly required by law or a warrant — cutting off a common pathway from routine encounters into immigration enforcement.
The PROTECT Act would require clear rights notifications, similar to Miranda warnings, informing individuals of their rights during immigration-related encounters in a language they understand. It would also guarantee at least one immigration-counsel phone call per day for detained individuals, improving access to legal representation.
Finally, the bill would ensure that people can contact emergency services and government agencies without fear that doing so will result in referral to federal immigration authorities.
These are not symbolic changes. They are legal standards, enforceable across the Commonwealth, and less susceptible to reversal.
Governor Healey’s actions represent an important shift in how Massachusetts approaches immigration enforcement. But executive restraint by itself, is not a durable solution. The PROTECT Act would move these protections from policy into law, where they are clearer, stronger, and harder to undo.
The question before the Legislature is not whether the Governor’s actions were worthwhile — they were. The question is whether Massachusetts will take the next step and ensure that these protections are permanent, consistent, and grounded in statute.
That is what the PROTECT Act would do.
