A Sutton Republican said Monday he will again attempt to update state law in response to a 2017 court decision that bars local law enforcement officials from detaining someone based solely on suspected immigration violations, a move sure to spark a legislative fight this session.
President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House and several high-profile instances of migrant arrests at state shelters have placed a spotlight on whether or not local law enforcement officers should be able to interact and cooperate with federal immigration officers.
During a speech on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Ryan Fattman said lawmakers “have done nothing” to address the ruling. In a follow-up call with the Herald, Fattman said he plans to file legislation this month that will allow local law enforcement to honor immigration detainers for people accused of dangerous crimes.
“I think one of the major problems that’s becoming self-evident is that the right to shelter is exacerbating the (ruling’s) problem. You have invited in criminal migrants — not everybody, don’t want to paint with a broad brush. But there is now evidence of at least five very dangerous people who have been invited in through our shelter program, who have raped, trafficked drugs, and have dangerous weapons,” he said.
In its ruling more than seven years ago, the Supreme Judicial Court left it up to the Massachusetts Legislature to define the extent to which local law enforcement officers, including court officials, could cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
The court’s decision found Massachusetts law provided no authority for local law enforcement officers to arrest and hold an individual solely on the basis of a federal civil immigration detainer beyond the time that the individual would otherwise be entitled to be released from state custody.
“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 ruling said.
It was a decision that was championed by then-Attorney General Maura Healey, who called the ruling a “victory for the rule of law and smart immigration and criminal justice policies, and a rejection of anti-immigrant policies that have stoked fear in communities across the country.”
But in an interview with the Herald last month, Healey said violent criminals should be deported “if they’re not here lawfully” and that local, state, and federal law enforcement should work together to investigate and prosecute crimes and remove people from the country who are criminals.
The 2017 ruling stemmed from the experience of Sreynoun Lunn, a man who was held by court officers in a Boston Municipal Court cell at the request of federal immigration authorities who had lodged a civil immigration detainer against him.
Civil immigration detainers are documents issued by federal authorities when they want to arrest a person who is in state custody in order to remove them from the country. By issuing a detainer, federal officers ask state officials to hold a person for up to two days after they would otherwise be released, according to the ruling.
The ruling found that the process of removing someone from the country is a “civil” issue, not a criminal matter.
“The detainers are not criminal detainers or criminal arrest warrants. They do not charge anyone with a crime, indicate that anyone has been charged with a crime, or ask that anyone be detained in order that he or she can be prosecuted for a crime. Detainers like this are used to detain individuals because the federal authorities believe that they are civilly removable from the country,” the decision said.
Fattman said that was “another barrier put up by the Trial Court.”
“There’s no such thing as a criminal detainer issued by federal immigration authorities. A civil detainer is a criminal detainer unless you want to make the argument that rape is a civil crime. Is rape not enough? Is trafficking a million dollars worth of drugs not enough? Is possession of a weapon of war not enough?” Fattman said.
Other lawmakers at the State House have also attempted to clarify the 2017 ruling, including Sen. Jamie Eldridge and former Rep. Ruth Balser. The two Democrats have pitched a bill for years that would limit cooperation between federal immigration authorities and local law enforcement officials.
Eldridge told the Herald this month that he plans to refile the measure, dubbed the “Safe Communities Act,” this session.
During a January 2024 hearing on the bill, Balser said the proposal was “very simply about drawing a clear boundary between what is federal responsibility and what is local and state responsibility.”
“It’s really about the separation of powers. Immigration Enforcement is a federal responsibility. It is not a state or local responsibility,” said Balser, who decided not to run for reelection last year. “… We really want people to feel safe, and we want people in the immigrant community to feel safe and we want them to be able to trust local authority.”