JANUARY 17, 2026

Dear Cambridge and Somerville Constituents —

In my last newsletter, I promised to outline in greater detail what we have done in Massachusetts to protect our immigrant neighbors and what more we can do through legislation, budgeting and community-led efforts. 

In the 10 days since the murderous execution of Renee Good, I have been working practically nonstop to sort through a very complex legal landscape to deliver my urgent recommendations to House Leadership.

Last Saturday, I marched with constituents to Government Center and stood with Luce organizers to memorialize Ms. Good (and the 32 other people whose deaths were attributable to ICE in the past year) and to demand an end to Trump's fascist campaign of mass deportation and his assault on everyone's civil rights.

I have been in constant conversation with key stakeholders and experts, including legislative colleagues and House Leaders, advocates from the ACLU, frontline organizers in our community, several notable law professors, my contacts in law enforcement, our colleagues in city government, and my Cambridge and Somerville constituents.

Some of the highlights of this work include a 90-minute meeting I had on Wednesday with the House Judiciary Chair, Rep. Mike Day, to review where things stand and what our priorities must be going forward. That evening, I posted a 14-minute video from my State House office to update folks on what we can do (available here on Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok).

Today at noon, I'll be back at JFK Federal Building by Government Center to speak at a rally organized by Voters of Tomorrow and Mass. Peace Action. Our message to the federal government: cut funding for ICE, bring back healthcare subsidies, and stop the war on Venezuela. Come out and say hello if you can!

In the text that follows, I will outline 9 things the state legislature should do right now to respond to the ICE crackdown. And then, I'll talk about one or two things that you can do, too. But first, I want to cover what we can't do — and also, what we've already done.

Overview of the legal landscape in response to the ICE surge

The first thing we have to do is be honest with everyone that we live in a constitutional federal republic, and there is no law we can pass in Massachusetts to simply make ICE go away. The Department of Homeland Security has jurisdiction over immigration matters, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement is part of DHS.

The doctrine of federal supremacy means the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can't obstruct federal agents or break federal law. However, we can refuse to participate in federal action, and we can refuse to cooperate. And if a federal officer violates state law, they can be prosecuted by the Commonwealth provided they weren't doing something necessary and proper to fulfilling their duties. The test for "necessary and proper" runs parallel to the doctrine of qualified immunity (more about that below).

And yet, this constitutional reality should also embolden us. Given that we can't simply banish ICE from the Commonwealth, we should be even more determined to do everything we can to limit cooperation between ICE and our state and local governments and to hold ICE accountable when they break the law or interfere with anyone's civil rights.

Congress, on the other hand, does have the power to abolish ICE or significantly cut funding to the agency while holding it accountable. My hope is that Democrats in Congress will do everything in their power to force this issue in the coming days.

What we've done so far to protect immigrants in Massachusetts

In recent years, we've taken three key steps to protect our undocumented residents.

First, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in its landmark Lunn decision, held in 2017 that there is no authority under Massachusetts law for police to hold someone at the request of ICE without a judicial warrant. This means that state and local law enforcement are prohibited from holding an undocumented immigrant solely on the basis of a federal civil immigration detainer.

This is a big deal. It's a big reason why Donald Trump and Tom Homan would say Massachusetts is a Sanctuary State. Immediately after this 2017 ruling, Gov. Baker attempted to undo it. And ever since, Republicans in the House of Representatives have tried to undo it as well — but we Democrats have voted time and again to uphold this precious case law that encapsulates the core idea of the original Safe Communities Act.

After Lunn, the next big priority we heard from immigrant justice organizers was the need to make driver's licenses available to all, regardless of immigration status. In 2022, we passed this legislation (filed by my Somerville colleague Rep. Christine Barber and co-sponsored by myself and others) and then voted to override Gov. Baker's veto. Nevertheless, the MAGA crowd would not accept it, so they collected signatures and put this law up for a repeal vote in that year's November election. Collectively, we campaigned to defend the law, and 53.9% of Massachusetts voters decided to uphold the law at the ballot box.

Access to driver's licenses is so important to undocumented immigrants, because it helps them avoid getting ensnared in the criminal justice system, which can lead to deportation.

More recently, after Trump took office last year, we in the House of Representatives voted to create an Immigrant Legal Defense Fund in the state budget. Given the realities of federal supremacy, many advocates tell us funding legal defense may be the most impactful thing state government can do. The fund was initially seeded with $5 million, and we are pushing to increase that amount this spring.

As an aside, we also recently established in-state tuition at Massachusetts public colleges and universities for undocumented high school graduates — a long-sought goal for immigrant advocates and progressives in our state.

Urgent priorities for legislative action — 9 things the legislature should do

1. Pass a law that extends the non-cooperation policies of the Cambridge Welcoming Community Ordinance to all state and local police departments in Massachusetts. Interestingly, our top priority right now is to pass something that isn't actually in any of the bills currently pending before the legislature. This is because the text of a bill like the Safe Communities Act was drafted several years ago and doesn't completely reflect the most pressing needs. Right now, the state's top immigrant justice advocacy organizations are working to draft new language that would prohibit any cooperation between our state and local law enforcement and federal civil immigration activities.

This week, I conferred with Cambridge resident and attorney David Sullivan, who worked on this language, and I brought the relevant language directly to Chair Day. Meanwhile, I met with the ACLU to get an update on their efforts with the Protecting Massachusetts Communities coalition as they work to build support for this language as well.

The need for this non-cooperation law was highlighted by the recent case of a 13-year-old Arthur Berto in Everett. In October, the boy was arrested by Everett police for making threats at school and brought to the police station. His mom was called to come pick him up. She waited in the lobby for an hour and a half — and then was told ICE agents had just arrived and were taking him into federal custody. He was immediately brought to the ICE office building in Burlington, and the next day he was driven to an ICE juvenile detention center in Virginia. Advocates believe this was a case of informal cooperation between local police and ICE, and the result is the boy is now in Brazil while his mom seeks asylum here in the United States.

Other cases of suspected informal cooperation involve instances where a local police officer pulls over an automobile, and then a little later, ICE agents show up and take the occupants of the vehicle into custody. Advocates report this happening in Milford, for example.

We need to prohibit formal and informal cooperation with ICE because it distracts from regular police work and erodes the public's trust in state and local law enforcement (and that undermines public safety).

2. Prohibit any new 287(g) agreements. These agreements allow the federal government to deputize state and local law enforcement to act as ICE agents who can perform civil immigration arrests. The good news is there are no active 287(g) task-force model agreements in Massachusetts. But, the Trump Administration recently rolled out a funding reimbursement program for participating state and local agencies, and nationwide, the number of 287(g) agreements has skyrocketed, from 135 agreements one year ago to more than 1,300 agreements as of this month.

At present, there is one 287(g) agreement in Massachusetts, but it's not the task-force model described above. Rather, it's an administrative agreement with the Department of Corrections, dating back to the Deval Patrick Administration, that informs ICE about people who are incarcerated following a felony conviction and subject to deportation. For my part, I am a co-sponsor of the Dignity, Not Deportations Bill, filed by my colleagues Reps. Christine Barber and Dave Rogers, that would ban all 287(g) agreements in Massachusetts. That said, the ACLU and the MIRA Coalition have made it clear their priority is to focus on prohibiting any new 287(g) agreements in Massachusetts.

3. Further empower Massachusetts residents to sue ICE agents. While federal supremacy limits what we can do to regulate ICE, the fact remains that everyone physically present in the United States — regardless of citizenship status — is entitled to the rights and protections of the U.S. Constitution — including due process, equal protection, free speech, and freedom from unlawful searches, etc.

We know the Trump Administration has demonstrated a total disregard for people's civil rights — and so, there's a movement afoot to further empower private lawsuits against federal officials using a concept called a converse-1983 statue. This allows Massachusetts residents, regardless of citizenship status, to sue ICE agents for violating their federal constitutional rights. It's the converse of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law which allows private lawsuits against state officials who violate federal rights.

Just this week, Governor Kathy Hochel announced she would be introducing legislation to make this possible in New York state. Here in Massachusetts, we're already one step ahead, because our landmark Massachusetts Civil Rights Act already allows any person to file suit against anyone else (including ICE agents) who interferes with state or federal rights.

The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA), passed in 1979 in response to racially motivated violence, was the only law of its kind for over a decade and is more broadly applicable than § 1983 in that it can apply to private activity and is designed to uphold both state and federal law. On the other hand, the MCRA is also more limited than § 1983 because it requires "threats, intimidation or coercion" — although when we consider recent ICE activities, that requirement may not be any barrier.

The challenge with applying the MCRA to ICE agents is qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields law enforcement and other government officials from liability in civil lawsuits for actions taken while performing their duties. Qualified immunity protects government agents unless they violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. In practice, this doctrine often requires an identical prior court case for a right to be considered "established." That said, qualified immunity is not a constitutional obligation. Courts decided to extend this protection to law enforcement, and ultimately the legislature could choose to restrict the scope of immunity for law enforcement and ICE agents. In my communications with House Leaders, I am making it clear we should do this now. Meanwhile, Congresswoman Pressley and Senator Markey have filed legislation to end qualified immunity nationally.

Notwithstanding the limitations of qualified immunity, Massachusetts residents are suing ICE agents right now. For example, the ACLU is working with a Fitchburg resident who is suing an ICE agent who used a forbidden "carotid restraint" that restricted blood flow to his brain and caused him to have a seizure.

4. Pass the Safe Communities Act. For each of my five terms in the state legislature, I've been a proud co-sponsor and an active supporter of the Safe Communities Act. The bill is perhaps the most well-known piece of legislation designed to protect immigrants in Massachusetts. As noted above, however, the biggest component of the SCA was made into law by the SJC in 2017. In the years since, the language of the SCA hasn't changed, so today, advocates acknowledge the bill itself is no longer the top priority.

That said, there are several provisions of the Safe Communities Act that we can and should pass into law right now. The bill would:

• Prohibit questioning by police and court officials about immigration status — this enables, for example, domestic violence survivors, tenants, and others to report crimes and abuses to authorities without fear of immigration consequences.
• Require police, court, and correctional personnel to obtain written, informed consent before any ICE interview of someone in custody (akin to a Miranda warning).
• Prohibit police, court, and correctional personnel from initiating contact with ICE about a person's pending release from custody (except at the end of a sentence of incarceration).
• Prohibit any new 287(g) agreements while allowing the 287(g) agreement with the Department of Corrections to continue.
• The bill would not otherwise restrict communications with ICE, in conformity with federal law.

This week, I spent the better part of an hour on the phone with one of the bill's lead sponsors in the House, my friend Rep. Manny Cruz. I found that he and I are very much on the same page in terms of our advocacy priorities. I'm also spoke with the bill's Senate sponsor, my friend Sen. Jamie Eldridge.

5. Pass legislation to keep ICE out of Courthouses. This week, I requested co-sponsorship of An Act Relative to Access to Justice, sponsored Rep. Day. Similar to the Safe Communities Act, this bill would also limit how our state courts interact with ICE and protect immigrants who get involved with the state's criminal justice system — and, it would also prohibit data sharing with ICE by other state agencies, such as the Registry of Motor Vehicles.

6. Pass Data Privacy Legislation. Last term, the House passed a significant data privacy bill. This term, the Senate passed a data privacy bill of its own — and most recently, the House Committee on Advanced Information Technology issued a favorable report for H.4746, An Act establishing the Massachusetts consumer data privacy act.

The House bill builds on the Senate's recent version, creating strong consumer protections like data minimization, bans on selling sensitive data (like geolocation, health information, and data about minors), and stronger enforcement, with enhanced rights for residents to control their personal information.

This is an issue important to all of us, and it's especially important to undocumented immigrants and people seeking reproductive care or gender-affirming care. I am very hopeful we will get this bill to the House floor again this year and send it to the Governor's desk as soon as possible.

7. Continue funding immigrant legal defense. Access to legal representation can make all the difference in deportation cases. Detained immigrants with a lawyer are 10 times more likely to win their case than those without. However, many immigrants face deportation proceedings without the support of an attorney.

As noted above, last year, the legislature created our state's first-ever Immigrant Legal Defense Fund in the FY26 state budget. In this year's state budget, advocates are hoping we can double the size of the fund, from $5 million to $10 million, and I am in strong support of that goal. Meanwhile, I am also co-sponsoring new legislation, the Immigrant Legal Defense Act, that would make this program permanent feature of Massachusetts law.

One idea I brought to House Leadership this week: take the surplus revenue from the Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) that ICE has with the Plymouth House of Correction and dedicate it entirely to immigrant legal defense. This IGSA is a financial transaction, whereby the county jail has agreed to house immigrant detainees for a per-diem fee paid by ICE. Unlike a 287(g) agreement, an IGSA does not give correctional personnel authority to enforce immigration law. This idea is now being pitched in an op-ed by a former law enforcement official.

For years, my strong stance was that the Commonwealth should terminate all IGSAs. On several occasions, I joined with activists to protest the IGSA at the Suffolk County House of Correction — and collectively, we succeeded in getting Suffolk, Bristol, and Franklin Counties to all end their IGSAs. Plymouth Co. is now the only IGSA remaining. But in practice, what frontline practitioners tell me is that life would be worse — for detainees and their families, and the advocates and allies who wish to support them — if the Plymouth IGSA was terminated. This is because the other options for ICE detention are the notorious Burlington ICE building (which isn't designed for human habitation) and/or transporting detainees out of state. At present, there is no standing option for ICE detention for women or children in Massachusetts — so this means while men may be housed at Plymouth, women and children are typically sent to other states while they attempt to fight deportation. And the reality is — removing an immigrant from any local family, community, or advocacy support (such as the Habeas Project of Massachusetts) only makes it more difficult for them to fight deportation and assert their rights in the process.

Currently, the Commonwealth is receiving more than $25 million annually for the Plymouth County IGSA. My conversations this past week suggested that at present, that money reverts to the state's general coffers. Therefore, my thought is that if we are going to accept this money as the least bad option, then all of the surplus revenue should be poured into immigrant legal defense. At the same time, we must temper this thinking with great caution because we do not want to make it easier for ICE to detain more Massachusetts residents, and we must closely monitor ongoing developments here and in other states to make sure this idea makes sense as conditions change.

8. Attempt to ban ICE agents from wearing face masks. ICE agents are continuing to show up masked and without any clear identification. This erodes public trust, which ultimately puts everyone, including public safety employees and law enforcement officers, at risk. It's unscrupulous, unethical, and leads to further threats to democracy, deeply harming our communities.

The traumatic experience of unwarranted and often aggressive approaches by masked strangers, especially for women and girls, has proven terrifying. Often, they are in unmarked vehicles, stalking our neighborhoods and failing to produce a valid judicial warrant or explanation.

Back in July, I co-sponsored legislation filed by my House colleague, Rep. Jim Hawkins, "An Act Ensuring Law Enforcement Identification and Public Trust." More recently, I requested co-sponsorship of another version of this bill introduced by Sen. Jehlen.

To be clear, California passed this bill into law, and so far ICE has ignored it, so the issue is now being fought in the courts. Privately, some advocates say they think it’s not so likely this will withstand legal challenge given federal supremacy — but it’s still an open question — so I am advocating for us to pass this bill now and let our AG have that fight in the courts. At the very least, it can be a statement of our values. It could also encourage a change in federal policy, and if all goes well in the courts, it may end up being enforceable state law against federal agents.

9. Attempt to limit ICE access to other public spaces. One issue that hasn't yet been fully developed in legislation in Massachusetts, but that I am keeping my eye on nationally, is an effort to restrict ICE access to certain public spaces.

Could a municipality pass an ordinance that restricts ICE access to a city-owned parking lot, for example? Could the state pass a similar bill? It's an interesting question that came up in some of my discussions this week.

In a few days, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors is set to vote on a proposal to carve out ICE-free zones at all county-owned facilities and to implement a county-wide coordinated response plan for when ICE or Border Patrol agents conduct operations in Oakland, California. Following the lead of cities like Portland, Chicago, Evanston and San Jose, this could restrict the use of government facilities, parking garages, and vacant land by ICE agents and requires posting of private property signage in places often viewed as public.

Across the country, legislation has been filed to limit ICE access to various community spaces, workplaces, and services including schools, day cares, health facilities, libraries, religious institutions, and shelters. See, e.g., new bills in Arizona (SB 1362 / HB 2807), Colorado (SB25-276), Rhode Island (H 5225), and New York(A.11013 / S.08925). It's still not clear to me how notions of federal supremacy may interact with these proposals, but in additional to everything I've outlined above, this is another area that I am very interested in pursuing.

Preparing for the worst — and what you can do

Yesterday, I delivered my suggestions for action and my top priorities to House Leadership. At the same time, I'm also sounding the alarm that the situation with ICE could get much worse. This week, it was reported 24 new SUVs were delivered to the ICE building in Burlington, Mass.

Meanwhile, on-the-ground reports out of Minneapolis have been deeply troubling. For example, a trusted local friend forwarded this report that was recently pulled from her friend's public Facebook post:

“Friends, I have had several of you from out of state ask about us, and I will tell you things are FAR WORSE than anything the mainstream media is presenting. There are too many videos to share, and far too many ICE raids, beatings, abductions, and other crimes to even begin to count let alone have any hope of knowing about, let alone sharing. And, of course, we all know about Renee Good's brutal murder last week. Everyone I know here is shaken to the core.

People need to know what is happening--in real terms, not the "balanced" 30-second segments on mainstream media. I'm writing tonight because, frankly, I don't know what else to do. A video shared by a close coworker in front of her church yesterday and more abductions at bus stops today became the last straw to be honest. I'm tired and angry, and so is everyone here.

I'm saying these things because we need people outside of the Twin Cities to understand these are NOT a handful of incidents. We are literally under the largest federal occupation of an American city in generations. With over 2000 (some say 2400) ICE agents here and another 1000 on their way, it is a deliberate political targeting of my state. The rest of the country should be watching. This is the testing ground. You don't want to live this way, I promise you. Fight like hell because they intend to bring this everywhere.”

So what can you do?

The best thing you can do — in addition to traditional legislative advocacy — is to get involved in community-led immigrant defense.

Visit LuceMass.org and get connected. And consider a donation to the ACLU or MIRA. There are various ways you can help out with these and other local organizations. And get involved with neighborhood groups and anything that fosters community connections in general — whether it's the PTA at your child's school or a text chain with folks from the dog park. The stronger our community connections, the better our chances at defending our immigrant neighbors and holding ICE accountable.

Back in September, we saw the power of these connections when ICE abducted one of my East Somerville constituents — and working together — we were able to figure out his identity, raise money for his legal defense, connect his family to legal support, and win his freedom from federal detention. A few weeks later, I had the joyous opportunity to meet with him over FaceTime following his release from custody — but we decided to keep the progress in his case quiet so as to not draw retaliation from the federal government.

If you've made it to the end of this very long message, I want to thank you. You must be as concerned about this situation as I am. I'm now heading into Boston to speak at that noontime demonstration at the JFK Building. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions or concerns on this or any other matter. Thanks, as always, for being an informed and engaged constituent.

Yours in service,

Rep. Mike Connolly