THE PROTECT ACT has made its way even further into the gubernatorial race, as 12 sheriffs have asked Gov. Maura Healey to consider addressing what they’re calling “an unintended public safety consequence” of a law intended to guard against overzealous immigration law enforcement by ICE.
On the State House steps, GOP gubernatorial candidate Mike Minogue on Tuesday accused Healey of “ignoring” the sheriffs’ request. Healey later called US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement “a rogue agency,” aligned Minogue with President Donald Trump and ICE, and said she’d “continue to talk with the sheriffs” about the concerns.
In an Oct. 22 letter to Healey, a bipartisan group of sheriffs wrote that the law passed in August with the intent to protect immigrants is hindering their ability to communicate with federal law enforcement when pretrial detainees subject to an immigration detainer and facing “violent, dangerous or drug-related charges” are released.
“I’m not here to try and make this into something political because I believe it is very dangerous when you mix politics with public safety,” Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph McDonald, one of two Republicans who signed the letter, told reporters at Minogue’s press conference.
“The big problem that I am here to talk about with the PROTECT Act is the fact that it precludes communication between local law enforcement, here in particular the sheriffs and our employees, and our federal law enforcement partners, specifically those at ICE,” McDonald said. “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.”
Hours after Minogue spoke to the press, the Healey campaign announced that the 12 Democratic sheriffs endorsed Healey. They wrote in a release that “While the PROTECT Act presents some challenges for our Sheriffs’ offices, we are confident that through continued collaboration with Governor Healey and Lt. Governor Driscoll, we can work together to refine the legislation, address our concerns, and find practical solutions that protect the rights and dignity of individuals while ensuring the safety and security of our correctional facilities, staff, and the communities we serve.”
The sheriffs wrote in their October 22 letter that there are pretrial detainees in their custody 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. This can create avoidable risks for the public, law-enforcement personnel, families, and others who may be present during those encounters.”
McDonald was the only sheriff with Minogue Tuesday, but the letter that Minogue held in the air at his press conference was also signed by Sheriffs Thomas Bowler of Berkshire County, Paul Heroux of Bristol County, Robert Ogden of Dukes County, Kevin Coppinger of Essex County, Lori Streeter of Franklin County, Nicholas Cocchi of Hampden County, Patrick Cahillane of Hampshire County, James Perelman of Nantucket County, Patrick McDermott of Norfolk County, Steve Tompkins of Suffolk County, and Lew Evangelidis of Worcester County.
The sheriffs requested that the administration “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.”
The law has been a point of contention between Healey and Minogue, the latter of whom has said he thinks state and local authorities should coordinate with federal officials to target violent criminals and drug dealers. Healey has defended her administration’s tactics meant to protect immigrants.
Of the clause in the PROTECT Act, Minogue said it’s “something that does not keep our people safe. It’s the lowest element of party politics, and it shows that the one-party system has lost common sense, doesn’t care about the safety of our people, and is doing whatever they can to cause fear and chaos.”
Minogue called on Healey and lawmakers to “listen to our sheriffs, work with them immediately on these concerns before creating potential gaps in public safety.”
McDonald drew a line between his comments and Minogue’s.
“I want to be very clear. I think the Legislature had the best of intentions when they did this. I’m not going to say that there was corruption. That was Michael’s take on his other stuff,” McDonald said, referring to Minogue’s allegations about the State Police union’s endorsement of Healey.
“With reference to this, I think the Legislature engaged in a very thoughtful process, a very deliberative process,” McDonald continued. “For some reason, the legislation in its final form didn’t necessarily reflect all of what I think was contained within that deliberative process. So what the problem was, was this limitation on communications.”
Healey signed the PROTECT Act on August 5 after months of private negotiations amongst lawmakers and escalating concern about violent federal enforcement in Massachusetts and across the country.
“The most important thing we can do as law enforcement is communicate with each other. And when we can’t do that, that’s when you end up with situations where ICE agents are going into the communities, not notifying us,” McDonald said. “We get a call that someone’s under attack or perhaps being kidnapped. We end up with a situation where our officers respond, the locals, and are unable to know until they get there that someone else with a gun is there as well.”
“I think we have inadvertently further victimized those otherwise law-abiding immigrants who come to this country that may not have legal status, but we have further terrorized them,” McDonald said.
He suggested that if state and local law enforcement can’t notify ICE about someone with an immigration detainer and violent charges once they exit their facilities, “that individual who could be subject to an orderly transfer of custody without going into the community is now going to be released into the community to disappear, to God knows where, to force those ICE officers to go out into the community. And we’ve seen it so many times, to face protesters, and inadvertently innocent people can oftentimes get hurt. What we’ve done here is not simply enabled that scenario to occur, we have essentially required that scenario to occur.”
Asked at a scrum in Weymouth Tuesday if the sheriffs’ letter lends credibility to the idea that the PROTECT Act needs to be looked at, Healey referred to her time as attorney general and pitted her immigration policies against Minogue’s.
“The bottom line is I’m going to do everything I can to keep people safe here, and I’m going to continue to do everything I can to work with public safety officials, with law enforcement, as I’ve done throughout my career, and my administration will continue to do that,” Healey told reporters.
“Right now, we wouldn’t need the PROTECT Act if ICE wasn’t doing what it’s doing throughout communities in Massachusetts and in states around this country, and it’s part of a failed agenda by Donald Trump,” she said. “My opponent will repeal the PROTECT Act and wants to double down on ICE’s involvement in Massachusetts. That doesn’t make us safe.”
Asked whether Minogue would repeal the PROTECT Act if elected, his campaign spokeswoman Elizabeth Hopkins said, “Mike’s position is that because the PROTECT Act contains a provision preventing sheriffs from cooperating with other agencies, it creates serious public safety issues. Mike has made clear that, as governor, he would listen to law enforcement, public safety experts, and sheriffs, and work to address those grave concerns.”
Sheriffs are also dealing with remaining fiscal 2026 budget deficiencies and scrutiny of their spending. The House on Oct. 21 passed a $2.35 billion supplemental budget that did not address sheriffs’ budget gaps, as lawmakers historically have in closeout bills.
Asked how he’s feeling about that and if it’s related to “tension” between law enforcement and the State House, McDonald said, “I hope it isn’t related to any of this tension. I think a cynical person would feel that way, and I try not to be a cynical person.”
“I have every confidence that the Legislature and the governor value what it is that the sheriffs do. And I think we’ll come out of this okay, because we have to. You know, the sheriffs play a vital role, county corrections plays a vital role,” McDonald said. “I think this latest bump in the road is just that — it’s a bump in the road, and we’ll get through it. But I think you’re perceptive to ask that question.”
House Ways and Means Chair Aaron Michlewitz told the News Service last week that “we are still having dialogue with the sheriffs.” He pointed to a House proposal that would change how sheriffs’ departments are funded and said the House has asked for more information related to past deficiencies.
“We are still working through that process with them, but have not got the entirety of the needed answers on that, and so we’re still working through that. And until we work through that, I think we’ve made it clear that we weren’t gonna be doing any further deficiencies budgeting going forward,” Michlewitz said.
[Colin A. Young and Sam Drysdale contributed reporting.]
