Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey has signed what she calls the strongest law in America for blocking and punishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.
The sweeping PROTECT Act restricts civil immigration arrests in courthouses, public schools, child-care centers, and health-care facilities unless agents have a judicial warrant.
It also limits cooperation between state and local authorities and federal immigration officers.
Healey did not hide the target.
At the signing, the Democrat repeatedly attacked ICE, President Donald Trump, and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller while promising that federal agents who violate state residents’ rights will face consequences.
Her same-day message reduced the new law to six words:
We’re keeping our people safe. pic.twitter.com/6Tm9ljFmsF
— Maura Healey (@maura_healey) August 5, 2026
The fight is now headed toward a basic constitutional question: how far can a state go in obstructing or regulating federal immigration enforcement?
NBC 10 News reports that Healey signed the PROTECT Act on Wednesday and presented it as a public-safety measure. The law expands restrictions on civil immigration arrests without judicial warrants to state courthouses, public schools, day-care centers, and health-care facilities.
Healey said the law allows residents to bring civil lawsuits if federal immigration officers violate their rights and subjects agents to state law. She declared that ICE officers who cross those lines in Massachusetts will be held accountable.
The governor also accused ICE of making the country less safe and described the agency’s enforcement campaign as part of a “hateful and racist agenda” driven by Trump and Miller. ICE’s Boston office had not provided the station with a response when the report was published.
The law reaches far beyond arrests at schools and hospitals.
State and local police generally cannot ask about immigration status during routine stops or interrogate a person for ICE unless the questioning is tied directly to a criminal investigation.
The measure also restricts new agreements under Section 287(g), the federal program that allows trained state and local officers to perform certain immigration-enforcement functions.
That means the state is closing off one of the principal tools the Trump administration uses to expand enforcement capacity through willing local departments.
The Massachusetts Legislature describes the PROTECT Act as a response to the Trump administration’s “weaponization” of federal immigration enforcement. Its own fact sheet says the measure curbs immigration activity at courts, houses of worship, public schools, and hospitals while creating new statewide standards for police, state agencies, employers, and public institutions.
The legislation bars Massachusetts law-enforcement agencies from entering most new 287(g) agreements and limits extended detention based solely on federal civil immigration requests. It also authorizes the state attorney general to enforce protections at polling places and requires multilingual guidance explaining how institutions should respond when federal immigration agents arrive.
Other provisions involve guardianship plans for parents who may be detained or deported, notice to workers when employers receive federal employment-verification inspections, and faster processing of certifications for certain crime-victim visas. The law preserves an existing cooperation arrangement involving the Massachusetts Department of Correction.
Supporters say the measure protects due process and keeps immigrant communities willing to report crimes.
Critics will see a blue-state government building a legal shield around people subject to federal civil immigration enforcement.
The distinction between an administrative immigration warrant and a warrant signed by a judge sits at the center of the new law.
ICE commonly uses administrative warrants issued through the executive branch. Massachusetts is insisting on judicial warrants for civil arrests in the protected locations named by the statute.
That does not erase federal immigration law, and it does not give the state authority to cancel a federal removal order.
It does create barriers, litigation risk, and operational uncertainty for federal agents attempting to make arrests in places the state has declared sensitive.
Axios Boston reported before the signing that the final compromise also requires businesses to notify workers at least 48 hours after receiving an ICE employment-inspection notice. The law recognizes prearranged guardianship plans for parents who are detained or deported without automatically terminating parental rights.
The outlet also noted an important exception: new 287(g) agreements may still be approved by the governor when they focus on criminal investigations and meet the law’s additional requirements. That leaves Healey with discretion to authorize limited cooperation while broadly restricting routine civil enforcement.
The bill passed both chambers of the Massachusetts Legislature last week after months of negotiations. Healey’s signature converts those policy choices into enforceable state law and ensures that the confrontation will continue well beyond Wednesday’s ceremony.
President Trump has made mass deportations and the removal of criminal illegal aliens central to his second-term agenda.
Healey has now put Massachusetts on the opposite track and advertised the state as the most aggressive legal obstacle to ICE in the country.
The next test will come when federal agents enter one of those protected locations, make an arrest under federal authority, and Massachusetts attempts to impose consequences.
At that point, the slogans will end and the Supremacy Clause fight will begin.
