Massachusetts PROTECT Act: Courthouse ICE Arrest Rules

The Massachusetts PROTECT Act’s courthouse provision took effect Tuesday, barring civil immigration arrests inside state courthouses unless officers carry a warrant signed by a judge, and it drew an immediate test. A Chelsea advocate says federal agents detained a young man inside the city’s courthouse that same day, and the state trial court confirmed a detention took place, GBH News reported, though no one has publicly said whether the agents had a judicial warrant.

Courthouses are where immigrants appear as defendants, crime victims, witnesses and parents in custody cases, and ICE’s January 2025 guidance allowed civil enforcement in or near them. At least 10 immigrants have been arrested inside New Bedford District Court alone this year, The New Bedford Light reported. State Rep. Andy Vargas of Haverhill, a sponsor, told GBH that victim and witness testimony has dropped as people stay away from court.

Gov. Maura Healey signed the law on Aug. 5, 2026. Several of its provisions were set to begin on Nov. 3, according to the state’s official summary:

Courthouses: civil immigration arrests are barred without a judicial warrant or court order, and the New Bedford Light reports that arrests of any kind are barred inside courtrooms.
People in detention: new legal access, transfer notice, language access and contact requirements apply to people detained in Massachusetts.
U and T visas: state and local agencies must act on requests to certify a crime victim’s cooperation within 45 days, or 14 business days in urgent cases.

Other parts of the law bar holding someone for ICE without a judicial order, block new 287(g) agreements and require employers to tell workers within 48 hours of a Form I-9 inspection notice, according to the state and the Massachusetts Municipal Association.

The Chelsea detention and the warrant question

Gladys Vega, president of the Chelsea nonprofit La Colaborativa, told GBH she was in court seeking a protective order when an agent came into a courtroom asking for a man by name, and that agents handcuffed him after his hearing without showing a warrant. The man has not been identified. A trial court spokesperson said court employees may not interfere with or assist immigration arrests, and that a judicial warrant would appear in the court system under a specific code, which cannot be checked without a name. A spokesperson for Attorney General Andrea Campbell said the office was in touch with the trial court and La Colaborativa. DHS did not respond to GBH’s request for comment.

That gap shows how the law works in practice. It does not make court staff stop an arrest, and an administrative ICE warrant, the kind signed by an immigration officer, does not satisfy it. Enforcement depends on lawsuits afterward: the state’s summary says people can now sue government officials, including ICE agents, in state court over constitutional violations, and the attorney general can sue over arrests in protected places. The trial court must also record civil immigration arrests at courthouses and report them each year by July 1, according to the New Bedford Light, which will produce the first official count.

A collision with federal supremacy

Supporters such as Vargas argue that arrests in courtrooms and courthouses deter victims and witnesses and disrupt the state’s own proceedings. Critics argue a state cannot regulate how federal officers enforce federal law. Peter Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams University, told the New Bedford Light the courthouse provisions are “more symbolic than real” and likely unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, and said the federal government may challenge the law in court or simply ignore it. Massachusetts has been here before: a federal judge in Boston blocked ICE courthouse arrests in Massachusetts in 2019, but the First Circuit vacated that injunction in 2020, finding the challengers unlikely to succeed. The difference now is a state statute rather than a claimed common-law privilege, which is likely to give Massachusetts firmer footing over its own buildings but sets up a direct federal preemption fight. A similar Connecticut law is already being litigated in federal court, according to the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition.

The likely next steps are a suit by someone arrested at a courthouse, an action by the attorney general or a federal challenge to the statute, each turning on whether a state can attach civil liability to federal agents working in a state building. Earlier fights over a Chelsea arrest that led to a federal damages claim, ICE re-arrests after habeas wins and California’s detainer limits suggest the answer will come from the courts rather than from any agreement between Boston and Washington.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds an LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Diego and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts