Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey just signed the PROTECT Act, which aims to restrict cooperation with federal immigration agencies (mainly ICE) to a minimum, as with similar legislation in the Democrat-controlled state.
Like earlier proposed “sanctuary” bills in Massachusetts, Bill H.5620 forbids state and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) from asking persons in custody about their immigration status, facilitating prisoner transfers, or sharing information — including dates of release — with ICE.
However, PROTECT goes further by:
– prohibiting ICE arrests in courthouses, health facilities, schools, child care facilities and places of worship
– authorizing the governor to sue ICE for violations of civil rights while empowering those claiming violations of their rights to sue ICE agents personally
– requiring employers to provide written warning to employees of upcoming ICE actions such as workplace raids or audits
– forbidding new 287(g) agreements under which LEAs receive training in immigration law and assist ICE in certain operations
Under the only remaining ICE agreement — which is with the Department of Corrections — the agency can investigate the immigration status of prisoners, but PROTECT requires inmates be informed of their rights in a language they understand, provided with interpreters, and allowed to communicate with immigration lawyers. Governor Healey defends this agreement on the grounds that it enables transfers of criminal aliens in a safe environment rather than forcing arrests out in communities where the risk of violent incidents is higher.
However, the bill she just signed prohibits transfers of prisoners from other safe environments, such as jails and courthouses.
Beyond its prohibitions, the Act creates a maze of regulations, semi-official bodies, and mandatory procedures. The management of protected places must designate contact persons and publish rules for interacting with ICE under multilingual guidelines from the governor and attorney general. Training programs in implementation are mandated while the governor and attorney general formulate “model policies” — all multilingual. To top it off, the Act creates a 21-member standing commission, including immigrant advocacy groups, to monitor implementation and recommend changes.
Under President Trump, too many families are afraid to send their kids to school, go to the doctor, or seek justice in court because of ICE.
Not anymore. Not in Massachusetts.
I just signed the PROTECT Act — America’s strongest protections against ICE — into law. pic.twitter.com/sVcZWorkYD
— Governor Maura Healey (@MassGovernor) August 5, 2026
So, is the problem the Act purports to fix serious enough to warrant imposing regulatory burdens on institutions across the state and confronting the federal government? A team of researchers at the ACLU investigated ICE apprehensions at “sensitive locations” in eight representative states (total population 79 million versus 7.2 million for Massachusetts) in 2025.
They found 41 alleged ICE arrests in or near schools, nine at hospitals, eight at homeless shelters and 171 at courthouses. Meanwhile, researchers at the Brookings Institution claim to have identified 13 arrests at high schools across the country (none in Massachusetts) between January 2025 and April 2026.
Here in Massachusetts, PBS/NPR affiliate WBUR reported that patients and staff at a hospital became unsettled after spotting ICE vehicles in the parking lot although investigations revealed that ICE agents had brought a drunk and ailing detainee for treatment. Otherwise, WBUR could not document any arrests at hospitals in the state.
The Protect Act is best understood as a reflection of the unrelenting nationwide radicalization of the Democratic Party, which is driven by rank-and-file activists, opinion makers, and primary voters who have found in ICE the ideal villain for their morality plays.
In 2020, grassroots militancy frightened Party leaders and major donors enough to force the nomination of the perceived moderate Joe Biden. When given the chance to moderate the allegedly harsh practices of the first Trump administration, the Biden administration responded by concocting interpretations of asylum law that allowed 9-10 million persons to enter the country extralegally while proposing more legal immigration and amnesty for those here illegally. No prominent Democrat objected openly. Consequently, resistance to the enforcement of immigration laws is now the orthodoxy among Democrats.
As the second Trump administration commenced strict enforcement of immigration laws, Democratic officeholders began obstructing ICE aggressively, sometimes in tacit alliance with Antifa and organized street agitators. The stiffening of resistance does not reflect any measurable embrace of open borders by the voters whose opinion of the Democrat Party turns increasingly negative as it veers harder left.
Simultaneously, cooperation with ICE is quietly but steadily growing outside progressive enclaves. The ACLU observed with disappointment that, while there were 133 LEAs enlisted in 287(g) programs in January 2025, an additional 1,079 agencies had entered into ICE agreements one year later.
Since 2025, anti-ICE fury has swelled in Massachusetts, where all nine U.S. representatives, both U.S. senators, and all other statewide officeholders are Democrats — as are 85-90% of state legislators. Furthermore, 80-90% of federal and state legislators run unopposed.
In earlier times, Democratic legislative leaders, fearful of offending moderate constituents, allowed bills granting driver’s licenses and in-state tuition to unlawful residents, as well as a “Safe Communities“ (i.e., sanctuary) bill, to sit in committees for a decade. However, in 2024 and early 2025, as their base grew angrier, the legislature approved driver’s licenses and in-state tuition for unlawful residents.
In the 2022-24 session, only 17 of 36 Democrat senators and 16 of 132 Democrat representatives cosponsored the “safe communities” bill, but by the beginning of the present session in 2025, 21 senators and 55 representatives had signed on. As ICE activities drew resistance from militants nationwide, some city councils in the state passed resolutions urging officials to confront ICE more forcefully.
In early 2026, the Safe Communities bill was replaced by the more aggressive PROTECT bill, a comparatively moderate version of which passed the House 134-21 in March and a more radical Senate version 37-3 in May, with all Democrats voting in favor. The bill that emerged from the conference committee largely reflected the radical Senate version.
What is truly puzzling is that two of five GOP senators and four of 25 GOP representatives, including the minority leaders of both chambers, supported this bill. Perhaps, being trapped inside a one-party echo chamber, they mistook unbridled rage on the left for a terrifying blue wave.
This article was written by John Thompson, Co-Chair of the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform. The opinions expressed are his own.
