A Tale of Two Policies: Why Amherst Needs Stronger Local Protections in the PROTECT Act Era

The Town should revise its Sanctuary Community Bylaw to align with the PROTECT Act while also addressing voluntary cooperation that state law still permits.

ICE arrests in Massachusetts are slowly and quietly increasing. Between January 20, 2025 and August 6, 2026, ICE made 9,783 arrests in Massachusetts, according to an analysis of the August 21 Deportation Data Project release. Earlier data through March 10 showed 7,030 arrests, nearly five times the 1,470 arrests during a comparable 415-day period at the end of the prior administration. Most people arrested had no criminal record. This surge is disrupting families, increasing fear, and undermining trust in public institutions.

A February 2026 poll (see also here) found that Massachusetts residents believed ICE had made the country less safe, strengthening calls to prevent taxpayer-funded municipal resources from supporting federal civil immigration enforcement.

Citizens for Juvenile Justice’s 2026 ICE OUT study, based on more than 90 public-records requests, documented extensive coordination between Massachusetts police departments and ICE. The report described local cooperation as a “force multiplier.” Longstanding habits of cooperation among law enforcement agencies can make such information-sharing seem routine, even when it is not legally required.

Massachusetts has now taken an important step toward establishing clearer protections for the immigrant community. The PROTECT Act, signed by Governor Healey on August 5, 2026, created new statewide restrictions on state and local participation in federal civil immigration enforcement. Among other provisions, it restricts officers from asking about or acting on immigration status unless it is directly relevant to a specified Massachusetts criminal offense, and prohibits police from stopping, arresting, questioning, searching, or holding someone solely on the basis of immigration status or an ICE request.

Gaps in the PROTECT Act

The PROTECT Act provides new protections for Massachusetts residents that human rights advocates have been fighting for over the last twenty years. At the same time, it does not resolve all concerns. Some information-sharing pathways remain open. For example, ICE can still submit a written request to a police department seeking information, such as a person’s location or court date, in order to locate and arrest an immigrant who may not have committed any crime.

Importantly, the PROTECT Act establishes a floor, not a ceiling. It leaves municipalities free to adopt stronger protections, and it continues to permit some forms of cooperation that communities may reasonably decide they do not want their employees or resources providing.

Amherst Policies

Amherst should be in a relatively strong position. The Town adopted its Sanctuary Community Bylaw (see Sec. 3.9, p.17) in 2017. Among other things, the Bylaw prohibits law-enforcement officials from inquiring about immigration status except where required by state or federal law and restricts responses to ICE requests concerning people in local custody.

Yet Amherst’s own police policies present a confusing picture.

Since 2020, the Amherst Police Department has reportedly operated under General Order #29, its “Immigrant Community Members” policy. This policy is referenced in multiple documents, including the APD website. That policy instructs personnel that when an ICE warrant, criminal deportation order, or “detainer” (a nonmandatory request from ICE) is identified during booking, the officer in charge is to contact ICE. This practice appears difficult to reconcile with Amherst’s Bylaw, which limits precisely this kind of voluntary notification.

Confusing matters further, the APD website directs residents to its written “Immigrant Community Members” policy, but the linked document is Policy #92, dated October 31, 2018. But Policy #92 differs significantly from Policy #29 and does not contain the same automatic ICE-notification provision.

Which Policy Governs?

That should not be a difficult question for residents to answer. The 2017 Sanctuary Community Bylaw invalidates any conflicting APD policies. A departmental policy cannot override a municipal bylaw. If the Bylaw prohibits conduct, a police general order cannot authorize it. Yet these documents continue to be referenced in current town policy statements.

The Town Manager’s March 3, 2026 Executive Order added further protections, including restrictions involving immigration-status inquiries, nonpublic town spaces, municipal resources, records access, and participation in federal civil immigration enforcement. A June 3 memorandum subsequently stated that the town remained guided by the Sanctuary Community Bylaw while APD continued to follow its longstanding Immigrant Community Members policy.

The PROTECT Act now makes updating these policies even more urgent. Several of its law-enforcement provisions took effect September 4. Both Policies #29 and #92 contain language that appears outdated under the new statutory framework, including routine booking inquiries concerning citizenship or immigration status. The new state law sharply limits when such inquiries may occur. The PROTECT Act still leaves some cooperation with federal immigration authorities optional. Amherst should distinguish between what the Town must do under controlling law and what ICE merely requests that it do.

At minimum, Amherst should promptly replace obsolete policies and make sure that every public-facing document accurately reflects current law. Ideally, it should codify the Executive Order into the Bylaw so that it can continue as an enduring policy. But the town should go further.

Federal law does not require municipal employees to administer civil immigration enforcement. Where cooperation is voluntary, Amherst can decide that its employees, facilities, databases, and other taxpayer-funded resources will not be used to facilitate federal civil immigration enforcement.

The Need for Transparency

This history of confusing and conflicting policies points to a core problem.

Amherst’s Bylaw provides for public reporting, but its reporting requirements have substantive gaps. It tells residents almost nothing about how often APD asked about immigration status, contacted ICE, disclosed information to ICE, encountered ICE warrants or other database alerts during booking, or otherwise assisted federal agencies. Policy #92 states that police may provide information about a person’s arrest status if ICE requests it. Policy #29 goes further: it requires APD to look for ICE warrants during booking and then contact ICE unilaterally if it finds one.  Neither of these types of APD-ICE communication is required to be reported under the Bylaw. Differing practices could potentially have dramatic effects on people’s lives. Without more complete reporting, the public cannot fully understand the scope or human impact of these practices.

Updates Are Needed

A “Sanctuary Community Bylaw” should not be window-dressing. Amherst adopted a Sanctuary Community Bylaw nearly a decade ago to limit cooperation between local public safety and ICE practices. Residents should be able to know what their police department’s policies actually are, whether those policies comply with local and state law, and when local officials will decline voluntary cooperation with ICE. Without transparency, consistency, and accountability, even strong sanctuary language risks becoming little more than words on paper.

The town should revise its Sanctuary Community Bylaw to align with the PROTECT Act while also addressing voluntary cooperation that state law still permits. The Town should codify the protections already in the Town Manager’s Executive Order in the Bylaw so they become durable. An updated Bylaw could also establish clear procedures for implementation, training, supervisory review, public reporting, and complaints.

These safeguards would protect immigrant residents, but they would also strengthen town government. Clear rules promote consistency and lower risks to residents. Most importantly, they would help ensure that Amherst’s stated commitment as a sanctuary community is reflected not only in its laws, but in its day-to-day practices.

---

Miriam DeFant is Co-Chair of Indivisible Mass Coalition (IMC) Immigration Justice Action Team and a member of Western Mass Immigration Legislative Advocacy Network (WMILAN)

Indivisible Mass Coalition (IMC) is a statewide volunteer organization that provides resources, support, and coordination to Massachusetts Indivisible members and groups, helping strengthen constituent power and democracy across the Commonwealth. The Immigration Justice Action Team (IJAT) serves as a statewide coordination and amplification hub within IMC. We bring together Indivisible groups, immigrant-justice organizations, the IMC Racial Justice Action Team, and other allies to support and amplify high-impact campaigns and actions that protect our immigrant neighbors, families, and communities. IJAT is currently working on a statewide project to help communities update local policies regarding ICE cooperation.

Contact: imc.ijat@gmail.com