Twelve of Massachusetts’ 14 county sheriffs have asked Gov. Maura Healey to change a part of the PROTECT Act that they say keeps them from warning federal immigration officers before releasing pretrial detainees charged with violent or drug crimes. In an October 22, 2026 letter, the sheriffs called it “an unintended public safety consequence” of the immigration law Healey signed in August, State House News Service and 7News (WHDH) reported. Republican nominee Mike Minogue held up the letter at a State House press conference on October 27, with Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph McDonald beside him.
Here is what the sheriffs asked for, how Healey responded, and what the statute actually says about release notices.
What the sheriffs wrote
- The problem they describe. According to State House News Service, the sheriffs wrote that they hold pretrial detainees who are subject to immigration detainers, are charged with qualifying violent or dangerous offenses, and have bail set below $1,000. “These individuals may be released without advance notification to relevant federal law-enforcement partners, potentially, posing a threat to our communities,” they wrote. “If federal authorities do not receive notice while an individual remains in custody, they may instead seek to locate that person in the community.”
- What they asked for. The sheriffs asked the administration to “review this issue and consider a legislative, regulatory, or administrative solution that permits limited, public safety-based notification when a pretrial detainee is subject to a detainer and is charged with a qualifying violent and dangerous offense.”
- Who signed. The letter was signed by McDonald and by Sheriffs Thomas Bowler (Berkshire), Paul Heroux (Bristol), Robert Ogden (Dukes), Kevin Coppinger (Essex), Lori Streeter (Franklin), Nicholas Cocchi (Hampden), Patrick Cahillane (Hampshire), James Perelman (Nantucket), Patrick McDermott (Norfolk), Steve Tompkins (Suffolk) and Lew Evangelidis (Worcester), State House News Service reported. McDonald was one of two Republicans who signed.
What McDonald, Minogue and Healey said
- McDonald. “It takes away perhaps what is the strongest and best tool that we have to fight crime and keep the public safe, and that is communication,” he said, according to State House News Service and 7News. He also said, “I think the Legislature had the best of intentions when they did this. I’m not going to say that there was corruption,” distancing himself from Minogue’s separate claim about the State Police union endorsement.
- Minogue. “When 12 of our 14 sheriffs raise serious concerns about legislation that will impact public safety, those warnings should not be ignored,” he said, according to 7News. His campaign said that as governor he would “listen to law enforcement, public safety experts, and sheriffs, and work to address those grave concerns,” without saying whether he would seek repeal, State House News Service reported.
- Healey. Healey called U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement “a rogue agency” and said she would “continue to talk with the sheriffs” about their concerns. “Right now, we wouldn’t need the PROTECT Act if ICE wasn’t doing what it’s doing throughout communities in Massachusetts,” she said, according to State House News Service.
- The endorsement. Hours after Minogue’s press conference, the Healey campaign announced that the state’s 12 Democratic sheriffs had endorsed her. Their statement said the law “presents some challenges for our Sheriffs’ offices” and that they were confident they could “work together to refine the legislation,” State House News Service reported.
What the law says about release notices
The provision is in section 7 of the PROTECT Act, Chapter 163 of the Acts of 2026, which added a new section 64 to chapter 147 of the General Laws. It took effect 30 days after the law did. The section covers every “law enforcement agency,” a term that expressly includes “a sheriff’s department.”
- The ban. Section 64(b)(2)(iv) says no law enforcement officer, while acting under color of law, shall “knowingly provide a federal immigration authority” with “advance notice of a person’s release,” or with a person’s “nonpublic personal information,” “custody status,” or “advance notice of a person’s upcoming court appearance.”
- The sentence exception. The ban on release notices does not apply to “release at the completion of a sentence” for a list of offenses. The list includes violent felonies causing serious bodily injury, sex offenses, serious class A or class B drug offenses, firearms offenses serious enough for a dangerousness hearing under G.L. c. 276, § 58A, and abuse offenses as defined in the abuse prevention law, G.L. c. 209A. The exception covers people finishing a sentence. It does not mention people released before trial, which is the group the sheriffs’ letter describes.
- The general exceptions. The ban does not apply where notice is “required by federal or state law, or pursuant to a judicial warrant, court order or treaty,” or “allowed by an agreement authorized under section 287(g)” of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. A separate part of the section, § 64(c), bars new, renewed or expanded 287(g) agreements, with limited exceptions.
- The written-request clause. The same clause ends by saying “such information may be provided upon receipt within the preceding 30 days of a written request for such information and that identifies a specific, named individual,” and only when “authorized in writing by an on-duty officer in charge.” That language comes right after the court-appearance item. The statute does not say plainly whether it also applies to release notices, and no court has interpreted it.
- No holding on a detainer alone. Section 64 also bars officers from detaining anyone “based solely on an immigration detainer beyond the time the individual would otherwise be eligible for release from custody.” That matches what the Supreme Judicial Court held in Lunn v. Commonwealth, 477 Mass. 517 (2017): “Massachusetts law provides no authority for Massachusetts court officers to arrest and hold an individual solely on the basis of a Federal civil immigration detainer, beyond the time that the individual would otherwise be entitled to be released from State custody.”
Changing the rule the sheriffs object to would take action by the Legislature, or a regulatory or administrative fix, which are the options their letter lists.
Frequently asked questions
Can Massachusetts sheriffs tell ICE when someone is being released?
Only in limited cases. Under G.L. c. 147, § 64, added by the PROTECT Act, officers may not give federal immigration authorities advance notice of a person’s release unless the release is at the end of a sentence for certain serious offenses, or notice is required by law, a judicial warrant, a court order, a treaty or an allowed 287(g) agreement. The sheriffs say this blocks notice when pretrial detainees charged with violent crimes post bail.
Which sheriffs signed the letter about the PROTECT Act?
Twelve of the 14 county sheriffs, including Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph McDonald and the sheriffs of Berkshire, Bristol, Dukes, Essex, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire, Nantucket, Norfolk, Suffolk and Worcester counties, according to State House News Service.
Can Massachusetts hold someone on an ICE detainer?
Not beyond the time they would otherwise be released. The SJC held in Lunn v. Commonwealth (2017) that state law gives no authority to hold someone solely on a federal civil immigration detainer, and the PROTECT Act now says the same thing in statute.
Sources: State House News Service, October 27, 2026, as published by Fall River Reporter; 7News (WHDH), October 27, 2026. Chapter 163 of the Acts of 2026, sections 7 and 24, read at malegislature.gov. Lunn v. Commonwealth, 477 Mass. 517 (2017), read on CourtListener. General information, not legal advice.