MassGOP: Protect Act disregards landmark Supreme Court decision

Tim Dunn, Boston Herald on May 11, 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 Massachusetts Republican Party is slamming state lawmakers for advancing House and Senate versions of the Protect Act (S. 3072) (H. 5158), that they say disregards a landmark Supreme Court decision affirming federal supremacy on matters related to immigration.

“By moving forward with the Protect Act, Massachusetts lawmakers are directly challenging the federal government’s role in immigration enforcement, a principle upheld by the Supreme Court in a case brought by President Obama’s own Justice Department,” said Massachusetts Republican National Committeewoman Janet Fogarty in a MassGOP press release.

The legislation would prohibit ICE agents from making civil immigration arrests in state courthouses and other areas.

Fogarty is referring to a 2012 Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. United States, where the high court ruled that the federal government holds authority over immigration enforcement, including where and when it can be enforced. The federal lawsuit was brought by the Obama Administration’s Justice Department.

In the decision, the court struck down several provisions of a 2010 Arizona law, signed into law by former Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, ruling that states cannot create or enforce local immigration laws that conflict with or undermine federal policy.

“Now the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to preempt state laws. There are subject areas where federal regulation is so extensive or the federal interest is so dominant that it may be inferred that Congress intended to displace state law altogether and this is called, field preemption. State laws will also be found invalid if they conflict with federal law and this includes situations where state law stands as an obstacle to the full objectives of Congress,” Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion on the ruling.

“With power comes responsibility and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the nation’s meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will, informed by searching thoughtful, rational, civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law,” he said.

The Massachusetts 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.

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.

“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

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.

The House version 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.

“The advancement of the Protect Act raises serious questions about its compatibility with established federal law and precedent, potentially setting the stage for further legal challenges,” MassGOP said.

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

-----------