Massachusetts Senate passes Protect Act as Democrats reject amendment to honor ICE detainers for convicted felons

Tim Dunn, Boston Herald on May 8, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

BOSTON — The clampdown on ICE continues in the Bay State.

The Massachusetts Senate passed its version of the PROTECT Act (S. 3072) Thursday in a 37-3 roll call vote, sending the legislation back to the House for consideration, as Senate Democrats rejected several amendments, including one that would allow local and state police to honor ICE detainer requests for convicted felons.

The Senate version of legislation would limit ICE capabilities and operations in the state by prohibiting agents from making civil immigration arrests in courthouses and on state-owned property, would ban any new 287(g) agreements in the state, and would even allow illegal immigrants to sue the agents who arrested them for civil rights violations, among other things.

“Today, the Massachusetts Senate is taking action to protect immigrant families, defend constitutional rights, and stand up to the fear and cruelty being fueled by Donald Trump’s weaponization of federal immigration enforcement. Across our Commonwealth, we are seeing children torn from their parents, students pulled off the street, and families living in fear—and we refuse to accept that as normal in Massachusetts” said Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, at a Thursday press conference announcing the opening of debate on the bill.

The legislation would also ban state and local law enforcement from engaging in civil immigration enforcement – including honoring ICE detainer requests; would “protect residents from direct actions by federal law enforcement,” that violate individual protections under the U.S. Constitution; and prohibit state and local law enforcement from “unnecessarily questioning” or stopping a person because of their citizenship or immigration status.

But an amendment filed by state Senator Ryan Fattman (R-Worcester & Hampden) that would allow state and local police to honor ICE detainer requests for illegal immigrants who are convicted felons was overwhelmingly rejected by the majority-Democratic body, with just five Democrats voting in favor of it.

“Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, upon receipt of a written request from a federal immigration authority requesting detention of an individual who is a convicted felon as defined by chapter 274 of the General Laws, 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(3), or 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a), a law enforcement agency may comply with the terms of an immigration detainer request received.” Fattman’s amendment reads.

Voting in favor of the failed amendment were Democratic Senators John Cronin, D- Worcester & Middlesex, Mark Montigny, D-2nd Bristol & Plymouth, Michael Moore, D-2nd Worcester, Barry Finegold, D-2nd Essex & Middlesex, and John Velis, D-Hamden & Hampshire.

The Herald has requested comment from Sen. Fattman on the rejection of his amendment.

The Senate version is similar to its House counterpart, but expands the state-owned property where ICE would be prohibited from carrying out civil immigration enforcement, going beyond state courthouses to include child care facilities, hospitals, public schools and more.

The Herald asked Spilka if she feels any ICE arrests are justified in Massachusetts, with several local news reports and releases from ICE Boston documenting violent illegal immigrants taken off the streets by the federal agency.

“That’s a pretty broad question, first of all. And again, Trump came in saying he was only going to arrest those with proven criminal records. Clearly, that’s not what has happened. As you have heard, over 75% of the kidnappings, arrests, whatever you want to call it, have been of people with absolutely no criminal background,” Spilka said.

The Herald then pointed out that being in the country illegally is in itself against the law, a civil violation, and calls for the federal government to enforce the law.

“I’m not going to get into debating you one-on-one here. I just answered you, okay? Thank you,” Spilka replied.

Spilka was also asked about the potential unintended consequences of banning ICE agents from making arrests in courthouses and other state property, specifically, whether she thinks this legislation would lead to the agency making arrests in public settings and potentially sparking dangerous situations seen in places like Minneapolis and elsewhere.

“We believe that we have done enough protection and done a good enough balance that that is very unlikely to happen. Again, the state can’t fully control ICE,” she said.

The House version (H. 5158) would ban ICE agents from making civil immigration arrests in Massachusetts courthouses unless supported by a warrant or court order. It would further ban ICE from using “state or local resources for the primary purpose of facilitating a federal civil immigration enforcement action.” The House bill also would ban the expansion of future 287(g) agreements with ICE and would also ban Massachusetts police officers from providing information to federal agents on someone’s immigration status or the date they are to be released from custody.

Spilka says she expects a conference committee to take up the bill by next week.

-----------