Editorial: 'Protect Act' an end-run around Constitution

Boston Herald editorial staff, Boston Herald on May 14, 2026

Published in Op Eds

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

The U.S. Constitution is not an a la carte menu. States can’t pick and choose the amendments and clauses they’ll abide by and those they won’t.

But this is Massachusetts, and our Legislature is trying to do an end run.

Lawmakers are advancing House and Senate versions of the Protect Act (S. 3072) (H. 5158), which would prohibit ICE agents from making civil immigration arrests in state courthouses and other areas, ban any new 287(g) agreements in the state, and would even allow illegal immigrants to sue the agents who arrested them for civil rights violations, among other things.

It’s almost as if the Supremacy Clause, (Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution), didn’t exist. But it does, and it mandates that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws or constitutions. And federal laws control the entry, terms of stay, and removal of foreign nationals.

Families of two Americans jailed in China urge Trump to seek release

Progressives in one-party Massachusetts may not like it, but unless Congress changes immigration law, it’s on the books and must be followed.

But, like much of Bay State politics these days, it isn’t really about illegal immigration, but another avenue to resist President Trump.

“Today, the Massachusetts Senate is taking action to protect immigrant families, defend constitutional rights, and stand up to the fear and cruelty being fueled by Donald Trump’s weaponization of federal immigration enforcement. Across our Commonwealth, we are seeing children torn from their parents, students pulled off the street, and families living in fear — and we refuse to accept that as normal in Massachusetts,” said Senate President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland) at a press conference last week announcing the opening of debate on the bill.

The feds have been here before, when the Supreme Court ruled in a 2012 Arizona case that the federal government holds authority over immigration enforcement, including where and when it can be enforced.

Do Massachusetts lawmakers think the Protect Act will make the Supreme Court reverse its ruling? Or are they swinging for the fences in the belief that the Supremacy Clause can be amended to mean that federal law takes precedence “when states feel like it?”

And while we’re on the subject of flouting laws we don’t approve of, what about Massachusetts’ legal doctrine of pre-emption? Under this, according to mass.gov, a provision of local law will stand only so long as it is not inconsistent with the state constitution or general laws.

What is to prevent cities and towns “resisting” the MBTA Communities Act from passing their own laws banning new zoning districts for multi-family housing?

But the MBTA Communities Act is one which state leaders like, and therefore enforce. Immigration law and the Supremacy Clause? Those are, if not negotiable, at least defiable, at least in Massachusetts.

ICE did itself no favors with its controversial actions in Minnesota, caught on citizens’ cell phones and shared with outrage. But deciding that immigration law should not be enforced is both short-sighted and performative.