In Part 1 of this series, I covered the gap in both versions of the PROTECT Act around police databases and ICE access, and the differences in how officers can communicate with ICE. For Part 2, I'll break down the differences and gaps on protected locations: where should ICE be banned from making arrests? As well as bail reform and access to legal counsel.

On January 20, 2025, Day One of Trump's second term, the administration rescinded a longstanding federal policy that had kept ICE from making arrests in schools, hospitals, courthouses, and places of worship. Since then, the consequences have been devastating for our communities.

At least 614 people were arrested by ICE in Massachusetts courthouses in 2025, more than double the 282 arrests in 2024. Massachusetts public schools lost over 15,000 students from fall 2024 to fall 2025, bringing enrollment to its lowest level in three decades, with the steepest drops in communities like Chelsea (down 350 students, or 5%). Healthcare providers across Massachusetts report immigrant families skipping medical appointments, delaying care, and canceling health insurance because they fear being detained. Pregnant immigrants are skipping prenatal visits, with public health experts warning the consequences will be felt for decades.

This is the context for Part 2 of our PROTECT Act series. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill aim to restore protections in these sensitive locations, but they take different approaches. Here is where they diverge.

Both versions create a new Chapter 221D prohibiting civil arrests in courthouses without a judicial warrant reviewed by a designated judge. Both require annual public reporting on all warrants and arrests. Both versions establish that any arrest made in violation of these protections constitutes false imprisonment, meaning the person arrested has legal recourse to hold the arresting agency accountable.

One difference between the House and Senate version is that the House defines "courthouse" to include the interior of any facility and property where a court conducts business. The Senate narrows this to just the interior of facilities. This matters because ICE agents have been making arrests in courthouse parking lots and on courthouse steps. The House version could cover court-owned parking lots and surrounding property because it includes "property" in its definition, but this would likely require interpretation. The Senate version, limited to the "interior of any facility," clearly would not cover those areas.

Critically, neither version creates a buffer zone around any protected area. For comparison, the federal Protecting Sensitive Locations Act (H.R. 1061) would ban all immigration enforcement within 1,000 feet of schools, hospitals, courthouses, places of worship, and other sensitive locations. That is the standard we should be working toward.

Another difference is the House also allows an "extraordinary circumstances" exception for courtroom arrests, as determined by a judge. The Senate removes this exception and flatly bans arrests inside courtrooms. The strongest final bill would combine the Senate's absolute courtroom ban with the House's broader definition of courthouse property.

The House version addresses schools and child care through the governor: it directs the governor to publish multilingual guidelines for school districts on handling ICE interactions. Just yesterday, Governor Healey issued exactly this kind of executive guidance for schools, health care facilities, and places of worship. This is helpful but it depends on executive action and can be undone by a future governor.

The Senate writes protections directly into statute. It adds a new section to the education law (Ch. 71, §102) that bans civil arrests on school grounds without a judicial warrant. On top of the ban, the Senate requires every school committee, charter school board, and collaborative school to adopt a written emergency response plan addressing ICE interactions, developed from model policies created by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in consultation with the AG. The Senate also adds a separate section (Ch. 15D, §23) with parallel protections for licensed child care centers, family child care homes, and school-aged child care programs.

It is important to note that "school grounds" is defined as buildings and property owned or controlled by the school. ICE can still make arrests just outside school property, on sidewalks, or in nearby parking lots. As with courthouses, neither version creates a buffer zone around schools or child care facilities.

Both school and child care provisions in the Senate version have a September 1, 2026 implementation deadline.

The Senate approach is significantly stronger. Statutory protections cannot be rescinded by executive action and they require every school and child care program to have a concrete policy, not just access to guidelines.

This is a Senate-only provision. The House version has no health care protections.

The Senate adds a new section (Ch. 111, §249) prohibiting civil arrests in nonpublic areas of covered health care providers without a judicial warrant. "Covered health care provider" includes hospitals, community health centers, clinics, nursing homes, rest homes, emergency medical services, adult day health centers, and substance use disorder treatment programs.

Each provider must adopt a policy designating nonpublic areas, identifying a contact person for ICE interactions, and training staff. The Department of Public Health and the Department of Mental Health must publish model policies within 30 days of the bill's enactment, and providers must adopt their own policies within 60 days.

Given the documented chilling effect on immigrant families' willingness to seek medical care, this is one of the most critical provisions in the entire bill. If the conference committee drops it, there will be no statutory protection for patients in Massachusetts health care facilities.

Also a Senate-only provision, and the weakest of the four location protections. The other three locations (courthouses, schools, and health care facilities) use direct bans: they prohibit law enforcement from making the arrest. The places of worship provision takes a different legal approach. Instead of banning the arrest, it creates a "statutory privilege from civil arrest" for anyone present in a place of worship during a religious service (Ch. 233, §20B½).

The practical difference matters. Under a ban, the arrest itself is prohibited and the AG can proactively enforce. Under a privilege, the arrest could still physically happen, but the person can challenge it afterward through habeas corpus. The AG can also bring enforcement actions. "Place of worship" includes churches, synagogues, mosques, chapels, and buildings rented for religious services.

The House version has no equivalent.

The House version includes two important provisions that did not make it into the Senate bill.

First, the House creates detailed protections for people held in state and county correctional facilities (Ch. 127, §87B). Every facility must provide written intake notices about the right to counsel and the right to decline ICE interviews, in the detained person's primary language. Facilities must ensure confidential, unmonitored attorney-client phone calls, notify attorneys and designated contacts within 6 hours of any transfer, provide interpreter services, and maintain a public phone number for confirming whether someone is detained. These provisions address the reality that people are disappearing into detention without their families or attorneys knowing where they are.

Second, the House amends the bail statute (Ch. 276, §58) to require courts to consider "the likelihood of imminent deportation" when setting bail. The intent is to recognize that someone facing deportation may have a stronger incentive to appear for court proceedings, which could argue for lower bail. But the provision itself is neutral in text: it adds a factor for consideration without directing which direction it should cut. A court could also interpret it the opposite way, viewing imminent deportation as a reason someone might flee.

The strongest version of the final bill would keep the Senate's statutory protections for schools, child care, health care facilities, and places of worship. It would use the House's broader definition of courthouse property and the Senate's absolute ban on courtroom arrests. And it would restore the House's detention facility protections and bail reform provisions that the Senate dropped.

In Part 3, I will cover the remaining differences between the two versions: the new state civil rights cause of action, the military forces provision, election protections, guardianship for children of detained parents, and the T/U visa certification reforms.

Please contact your legislators and ask them to push for the strongest possible protections in the final bill. Our immigrant neighbors are counting on us to get this right.

If you missed Part 1, you can read it here.

Follow on Instagram · Follow on Bluesky

Facebook · Instagram · Bluesky

Paid for by Committee to Elect Erika Uyterhoeven · Somerville, MA
Contributions are not tax-deductible · $1,000 max per individual per calendar year

Unsubscribe | Manage Preferences