SJC ruling expected to open door for pols’ sanctuary pitches
The Supreme Judicial Court’s blockbuster ruling that local authorities can’t hold immigrants who are facing an ICE-ordered deportation without a criminal warrant is expected to fuel legislative attempts to make Massachusetts a sanctuary state.
State Rep. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) — whose Safe Communities Act would bar the use of state or local resources for immigration enforcement — said yesterday’s decision is a boon to his cause, because it calls on lawmakers to rule how much power federal Immigration Customs Enforcement detainers have here.
“The SJC explicitly says that the Legislature needs to lay out the standard,” Eldridge said. “I would hope that would add another push to passing the Safe Communities Act.”
The measure would block cops from inquiring about a person’s immigration status unless the person is being investigated for an immigrationrelated crime, and from detaining a person solely on an ICE detainer.
Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, which is critical of sanctuary jurisdictions and advocates for tougher immigration laws, said there is concern the decision will lead to a wave of sanctuary proposals.
“There are politicians now in the commonwealth who are looking for any excuse they can think of to impose sanctuary policies for political reasons,” Vaughan said, “and so they will not hesitate to use this ruling to help them make the case.”
The ruling came in a case brought by a Cambodian national named Sreynuon Lunn, whose unarmed robbery case was dismissed when the alleged victim, a homeless man, didn’t show up for court. Still, a judge ordered him held on an ICE detainer until the feds could pick him up.
The SJC found that the detention amounted to an arrest, and there is no basis in state law to hold someone on a civil process like an ICE detainer, which does not allege a crime has been committed but states the feds’ belief that a person is here without authorization.
C.M. Cronen, ICE field officer in Boston, said in a statement last night: “While ICE is currently reviewing this decision to determine next steps, this ruling weakens local law enforcement agencies’ ability to protect their communities.”
The unanimous SJC ruling states the 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 individual would otherwise be entitled to a release from State custody.” The justices added the state Legislature is where this debate should be settled.
But not all lawmakers are seizing the sanctuary route. State Rep. James Lyons (R-Andover) said he plans to submit a bill today that would allow holding immigrants who are subjects of a lawful removal order from the Department of Homeland Security and haven’t left the country within 90 days of that order.
“The people of Massachusetts don’t believe that we ought to be a sanctuary state, and this (ruling) seems to be moving us in that direction,” Lyons said. “We’re basically hoping to have in place the tools for public safety to be able to work with federal immigration to protect our communities.”
The ruling calls into question the policy of state police, who Gov. Charlie Baker authorized last year to hold for 48 hours any immigrant who is suspected of terrorism or has been convicted of a gang-related offense, felony, significant misdemeanor like domestic violence, or three lesser misdemeanors, not including minor traffic offenses.
Baker, who opposes making Massachusetts a sanctuary state, signaled he wants to preserve the discretion yesterday in responding to the SJC ruling.
Baker spokeswoman Lizzy Guyton said: “The administration is currently reviewing the decision and believes the governor’s state police policy that allows troopers to cooperate with ICE to detain individuals convicted of violent crimes such as murder or domestic violence is an important public safety tool to keep Massachusetts safe.”
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that nothing in Massachusetts law permits the state to retain custody of an individual on a federal civil immigration detainer, beyond the time that individual would otherwise be entitled to release. It’s a victory for immigrants in state custody who are facing deportation — and a blow to public safety — but it needn’t be the final word.
The ruling came in the case of Sreynuon Lunn, who as a baby was brought to the U.S. from a refugee camp in Thailand. After committing a series of crimes as an adult he was ordered deported to Cambodia, but never removed.
In 2016, after his arraignment on an armed robbery charge, federal officials issued a civil immigration detainer against Lunn. He was held in state custody until a scheduled trial in February. After the criminal charge was dropped he continued to be held on the civil detainer, so the feds could pick him up.
The court’s ruling yesterday declared that detention unlawful — it amounted to an arrest, and “nothing in the statutes or common law of Massachusetts authorizes court officers to make a civil arrest in these circumstances.”
“Conspicuously absent from our common law is any authority (in the absence of a statute) for police officers to arrest generally for civil matters ... ” the justices wrote. The court also suggested any attempt by the federal government to force a state to honor a civil immigration detainer would collapse under the weight of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
While the practical outcome of this case is deeply troubling — individuals with a criminal history who are under a deportation order could walk free — Beacon Hill is not powerless on this issue, as the ruling also noted.
“The prudent course is not for this court to create, and attempt to define, some new authority for court officers to arrest that heretofore has been unrecognized and undefined,” the justices wrote. “The better course is for us to defer to the Legislature to establish and carefully define that authority if the Legislature wishes that to be the law of this Commonwealth.”
Of course the Democrats who control Beacon Hill are far more inclined to adopt a statute that forbids cooperation on such detainers rather than one that permits it. They should reconsider that view.