With the marked increase in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in Massachusetts since the start of Trump’s second term, and the involvement of police in the ICE raid that occurred in Worcester about two weeks ago, questions surrounding local and state law enforcement's cooperation with ICE have been at the center of many conversations. These questions concern not only the legality of local law enforcement’s involvement in ICE operations, but also with the safety of communities across the state and country. 

In 2017, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling on the Lunn v. Commonwealth case that answered one of these questions. The case centered around Sreynuon Lunn, who had been brought to the United States as a seven-month-old refugee from Cambodia, and who was later arrested and detained by local law enforcement for a criminal charge that was dismissed. Despite the dismissal, Lunn was held in custody beyond when he would otherwise be released so that ICE officials operating based upon civil immigration law could bring him into federal custody. 

The main argument made by Lunn’s defense team was that “the state’s cooperation with ICE detainers not only violates constitutional protections against warrantless arrests but also creates a substantial risk of discriminatory – and unlawful – enforcement.” 

Ultimately, the Supreme court decided that Massachusetts law enforcement did not have the authority to act solely based on ICE detainers – a detainer being “ICE’s ‘request’ that, if an immigrant of interest to ICE is in the custody of local authorities for any reason, the authorities voluntarily delay that individual’s release by up to 48 hours to allow ICE to transfer him or her into immigration custody.”

The issue is that the court decision is not enough to completely prevent local and state law enforcement from complying with ICE operations and detainer requests. There were many open-ended questions that remained unanswered by the court’s ruling. Governor Maura Healey, who was still Attorney General at the time, and the Supreme Judicial court both argued that the issues presented in the case would be best addressed via legislative action. But, in true Massachusetts Legislature fashion, no decisive action has been taken in the years following the 2017 court case. 

Some of the same issues that were raised in arguments made by the defense team in Lunn v. Commonwealth would have been addressed by the Safe Communities Act – which would definitively end voluntary involvement of local law enforcement in civil immigration operations – had the state Legislature passed the legislation when it was first filed as the Trust Act (H.1613/S.1135) in 2013.

Increased racial profiling by law enforcement, which many activists and academics have warned would be an outcome of increased ICE activity, has already been a reality. With 287(g) contracts, local law enforcement can be deputized and perform federal immigration law enforcement actions in specific cases. The Safe Communities Act would help to decrease instances of racial profiling by addressing one of the root causes of the issue, i.e. agreements between local and state law enforcement and ICE. 

There would help to maintain trust between Massachusetts communities and law enforcement, because residents would not have to be concerned about risking ICE involvement when seeking aid from law enforcement for civil or criminal issues. The ultimate result of this lack of trust would be increasingly dangerous situations that people feel they do not have the trustworthy resources to address. 

Overall, the Safe Communities Act would do exactly what its name suggests – keep Massachusetts communities safe. Both the attorney general and the Supreme Judicial Court at the time asserted that the Legislature had the responsibility to take action that would prevent dangerous situations that have been brought about by Trump’s second term. Now is the time for action to be taken, so why hasn’t the Legislature passed legislation to keep constituents safe? 

A major factor is legislative inaction, perpetuated by the lack of transparency, accountability, and democracy on Beacon Hill. 

If you are as angered about the Legislature’s inaction as we are at Act on Mass, join us in taking action this summer with our Transparency on Tour Campaign. 

Blog post by Sydney Mascoll, Act on Mass Policy Fellow, Spring 2025