LAST YEAR, as the Trump administration ramped up immigration enforcement and deportation efforts across American cities, Massachusetts’s top prosecutor warned that holding federal immigration agents “accountable” for their actions is a difficult task.

“The federal authority and laws that give them such power – they have tremendous power to enforce immigration law – so you almost have to see something so egregious to possibly hold them accountable,” Attorney General Andrea Campbell said on GBH radio.

Massachusetts was grappling at the time with the fallout from a chaotic US Immigration and Customs Enforcement action in Worcester, where local police tried to clear a crowd of people attempting to stop ICE from taking a woman into custody. Months later, communities were on high alert, and the governor was warning that deportation actions rocking Los Angeles and Chicago would come to Boston as a show of “political theater” intended to “intimidate and create fear.”

The country is now fixed on Minnesota, where an operation that has so far involved 3,000 arrests has resulted in the fatal shooting of two US citizens in Minneapolis. These sweeps have drawn sharp rebukes from Massachusetts officials – largely Democrats – calling for deescalation and a rollback of the aggressive immigration efforts.

Even as Gov. Maura Healey took aim at ICE during her State of the Commonwealth speech last week, the bottom line is that Massachusetts officials have more power to deplore federal immigration actions than to stop them.

So what can the Bay State do when immigration enforcement comes knocking? Here’s a primer on where state officials stand and what policies they are and aren’t pushing.

What are Massachusetts officials worried about?

Democrats control almost all the levers of power in the state, and they have been vocal about their horror at immigration enforcement surges across the country, including in Massachusetts.

Healey on Monday decried the fatal shooting of ICU nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, saying “there was no need for all of that to go down in the way that it did.” She condemned immigration agents’ tactics and said in her State of the Commonwealth speech that these aggressive surges and deportations “don’t make us safer.”

In an ICE surge in Massachusetts during September, about 1,400 people were arrested – less than half with “significant” criminal backgrounds by the agency’s own counts. Boston and other cities are gearing up for expected enforcement surges in the near future.

Sen. Cindy Friedman of Arlington, the Senate’s point person on responding to Trump administration policies, said the killing of Pretti has added to the feeling among lawmakers that they need to take whatever action they can. “What’s happened in Minnesota, to see how far the federal government is willing to go, the urgency has increased,” said Friedman.

The attorney general’s office is on high alert, Campbell said, and “if we see what we’re seeing in Minnesota unfold in Massachusetts, we will be ready to act. We will be ready to file lawsuits. We will be ready to seek any accountability that is necessary.”

What are the Republicans saying?

Prominent GOP figures in Massachusetts are for the most part not commenting on ICE tactics while expressing support for immigration enforcement. After agents shot Pretti, Republican leaders called the death a “tragedy” and expressed hope that a reportedly productive call between President Trump and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz boded well for deescalation. The administration on Tuesday announced that Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino was being reassigned to the southern border and “border czar” Tom Homan will begin leading on-the-ground efforts in the city.

Amy Carnevale, chair of the Mass. GOP, told Boston 25 News after the fatal shooting of Renee Good but before the killing of Pretti that “while some criticize from the sidelines, Massachusetts Republicans stand shoulder to shoulder with those who run toward danger, protect our communities, and uphold the rule of law every single day.”

Republican gubernatorial hopefuls Mike Kennealy and Brian Shortsleeve both said during a Massachusetts enforcement surge in September that the state would cooperate with ICE if either man were elected governor. Kennealy and Shortsleeve both worked under former governor Charlie Baker, who proposed a bill that would have allowed local law enforcement to hold certain people in custody at the request of ICE after the state Supreme Judicial Court determined those immigration-based detentions were unlawful.

While Republicans have limited power in the Legislature, House Minority Leader Brad Jones criticized Healey’s track record on immigration and shelter policy, but allowed a measured critique of ICE.

“I don’t think anybody can look at some of the things that ICE has done in certain states and jurisdictions and be happy with that,” he said after the governor’s speech this month. “We’ve seen this course correction from a policy of open borders to round everybody up and throw them out.’ I’m much more someone who believes that we need a more centrist, middle-of-the-road approach.”

The US Constitution. Federal law explicitly prohibits state interference with immigration enforcement, and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution gives federal authorities broad power over immigration policy.

“The federal government has immense power over immigration enforcement, and that, sadly and unfortunately, includes the authority to arrest law-abiding people who are here without documentation,” Campbell said. “But that power cannot exceed their authority, so they cannot violate people’s basic constitutional rights or infringe upon a state or city’s right to protect their own residents.”

This means state attorneys general have to play defense. If the top prosecutor in a state thinks the federal government has overstepped, as Campbell and a coalition of AGs say is the case in Minnesota and other states, they can file lawsuits or amicus briefs. The challenge in individual cases, Campbell noted, is that the federal government can quickly claim their agent has “qualified immunity” – meaning they can’t be legally punished for work they do in the course of their official duties.

Working through the courts can be a slow process, Campbell said, and judges are being asked to consider weighty issues of federal and state sovereignty.

“There is an opportunity for our offices – and it is only AGs that have this ability to file these lawsuits to protect our residents against constitutional threats,” Campbell said.

Recent suits have come about because there have been two deaths, with recordings that seem to contradict the federal government’s account. “We are looking to hold them accountable, understanding it’s still difficult, even in the context of a killing like that with video recording,” Campbell said.

What about lawmakers?

Members of the state’s all-Democratic congressional delegation want US Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign or be removed from office. Rep. Seth Moulton has filed a bill to redirect ICE funding to health care tax credits, and Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Ayanna Pressley have filed legislation to end qualified immunity for ICE agents and other federal immigration officers. Neither bill is likely to advance under the Republican-controlled House and Senate in Washington.

State lawmakers say they have been trying to carefully craft something that balances state protections with federal supremacy on immigration.

A policy package known as the Safe Communities Act, which has been filed every term for almost a decade, is back on the table in at least the state Senate. The legislation would prevent police and court officials from asking about immigration status, require written consent from a person in state custody before federal immigration officials can interview them, and strengthen due process protections.

It would also ban 287(g) contracts, which are agreements between local officials and federal authorities that let the local authorities act as federal immigration agents. The state Department of Correction is the only Massachusetts law enforcement entity with a 287(g) agreement. The Department of Homeland Security announced in September that it now has more than 1,000 such agreements across the country.

That agreement with the Department of Correction allows them to cooperate with ICE in the case of individuals with “serious felonies,” Friedman said. But those aren’t the bulk of people being targeted by the new wave of enforcement, she said.

Legislative leaders as recently as October downplayed the need for the Safe Communities Act as advocates renewed calls for its passage.

Along with the Safe Communities Act provisions, the state Senate is considering legislation filed by state Sen. Lydia Edwards of East Boston that would create new restrictions for immigration authorities in state courthouses. Under the bill, all law enforcement agents would need to identify themselves to court officers, they would be barred from wearing masks inside the courthouse, and be required to have a judicial warrant to detain someone on courthouse grounds.

Edwards, an attorney, is fairly confident her bill would survive challenges from the Trump administration. She points to similar laws in Connecticut and Rhode Island, as well as a 2020 New York law requiring federal immigration agents to have signed warrants for arrests on courthouse grounds, which was upheld by a federal judge in November.

“We do have and are empowered to protect our state property, our courts, our buildings,” Edwards said. “We are legally allowed to conserve our state resources. We do not have to comply with ICE. The federal government is not allowed to conscript us into service of the federal government. So we are firmly within the powers of the 10th Amendment,” she said, citing the constitutional provision that reserves all rights not assigned to the federal government to the states and individuals.

Friedman said if she were a “betting person,” she would say “something’s gonna happen.”

In the Senate, lawmakers are working through the details of potential legislation, including and expanding on Edwards’s bill, that may raise questions about the line between state and federal jurisdictions. For example, Friedman said, they may want to make sure immigrant families are able to drop their children off at school without fear of deportation. But school grounds are public grounds, and barring federal officials from public land could pose a legal challenge.

But the Senate is just one chamber, and House leadership has not committed to new immigration-focused measures.

The Trump administration’s actions “are an assault on the basic principles upon which this country was founded,” House Speaker Ron Mariano said in a statement. “While the Trump administration’s rhetoric has made it clear that they have no interest in following the law or working with state and local governments to ensure public safety, the House will continue to review legislation related to this issue with the safety of our residents in mind.”

The Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus is scheduled to announce its immigration priorities, including a new bill with protections for immigrant communities and clearer due process guidelines, on Wednesday afternoon.

The governor has been pretty forceful about ICE. What is she doing?

Healey’s actions have been more limited and her rhetoric more cautious than when she served as attorney general during Trump’s first term. Practically speaking, governors have limited tools: They can speak out publicly, refuse voluntary state cooperation with federal authorities, and support legal challenges. But they cannot stop federal agents from operating in their states.

The governor has criticized ICE tactics, calling expanded enforcement “insane”, but has repeatedly insisted Massachusetts is not a “sanctuary state” – a loosely defined term that refers to state law limiting cooperation with immigration authorities – and emphasized that apprehending dangerous criminals essential for public safety.

In December, she demanded ICE stop using Hanscom Field in Bedford for deportation flights, calling the practice “disturbing and anti-American.” Hanscom commissioners, considering whether the federal government is violating state regulation with deportation flights out of the airport, said ICE currently has aircraft that carry from 150 to 200 passengers coming and going from the aviation field three days a week on a scheduled basis.

Healey has not, however, spoken out in favor of specific legislation or proposed new policy action. Her office did not respond to request for comment on any Massachusetts laws regarding immigration enforcement she would like to see introduced, clarified, or strengthened.

So where does this leave Massachusetts?

With limited tools but seizing on a moment of national outcry over Minnesota as a rallying point. Many of the details around federal immigration actions are swirling through the courts, but they are struggling to enforce their own orders.

On the local level, Boston – with the support of the attorney general’s office – is fighting a Trump administration challenge to its Trust Act that limits local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Campbell is also encouraging residents to share specific stories of their experiences with immigration enforcement.

Strengthening state and local laws are meaningful moves, the AG said, but on these federal matters Congress is the major player.

In the end, Campbell said, “the cards are stacked against all of us at the state level.”

Jennifer Smith writes for CommonWealth Beacon and co-hosts its weekly podcast, The Codcast. Her areas of focus include housing, social issues, courts and the law, and politics and elections. A California...