SJC will decide whether ICE hold hangs up rights
Amid the ongoing controversy surrounding President Trump’s hard-line stance on immigration, the Supreme Judicial Court is preparing to hear a blockbuster case that could reshape how Massachusetts officials work with federal immigration authorities.
The high court next month will consider whether the Bay State has the authority to temporarily hold a person on the basis of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer after criminal charges have been dropped. The SJC will also look at whether someone can be held by the state via an ICE detainer without a probable cause determination.
The emergency petition to the SJC was brought by Sreynuon Lunn, a foreign national who was in state custody on a case out of the Boston Municipal Court. The case against him was dismissed on Monday after Suffolk prosecutors could not move forward with a trial.
He asked to be released, but Judge Michael Coyne refused due to a request from ICE to hold him, according to court documents.
“By announcing that the court would hold the Defendant on the ICE detainer past the time when he would otherwise be released from state custody, the trial court has effectuated a new arrest based solely on a civil immigration detention request,” wrote Alyssa Hackett, a public defender representing Lunn.
Lunn has been moved to federal immigration custody, according to Hackett, a maneuver that effectively renders his case moot. However, SJC Justice Barbara Lenk — who initially considered the petition — reported the case to the full court.
“Because the case raises important, recurring, timesensitive issues that will likely evade the full court’s review in future cases, I anticipate that the full court will address the issues and decide the matter despite its mootness,” Lenk wrote on Tuesday.
The full SJC will hear the case on March 15. The Trial Courts and state Attorney General’s Office declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.
If the court sides with Lunn, it could have a drastic effect on how state and federal authorities work together on immigration cases. Hackett argues the state has no authority to hold people on ICE detainers because, under state law, they haven’t committed a crime.
“Massachusetts law does not authorize arrest for civil immigration violations,” she wrote.
Hackett said the state holding Lunn on an ICE detainer violated his constitutional rights because there was no probable cause determination and he had no chance to challenge it in court.