(MASSACHUSETTS) The state’s prison agency is now the only public entity in Massachusetts — and the last in New England — with an active 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a pact that lets trained state officers carry out limited federal immigration duties inside a state-run prison. As of August 24, 2025, the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) continues to operate under this partnership with ICE, even as protests, legislative action, and pressure on Governor Maura Healey intensify.
The work happens inside the Plymouth County Correctional Facility, which functions as an ICE detention site where people can be identified, processed, and held for possible removal. Advocates say this setup feeds fear in nearby communities. Supporters say it helps ensure people in custody who pose real safety risks do not slip through the cracks if they’re also removable under federal law.
The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and scope
The most recent Memorandum of Agreement on record runs from July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025, and program documents state it can be renewed or renegotiated.
- Under the arrangement, only designated DOC staff — trained and supervised by ICE — may perform certain immigration tasks.
- Those powers include:
- Confirming identity against federal databases
- Issuing paperwork to start deportation cases
- Keeping people in custody for ICE, all within rules set by the federal agency
The DOC’s pact stands out because other Massachusetts prisons and local agencies have ended similar deals in recent years.
How the 287(g) agreement functions inside Plymouth
Under the 287(g) agreement, only specific DOC personnel, approved by ICE, can do immigration work. These officers receive training, follow federal procedures, and operate under ICE’s review.
Key operational points:
– Duties are limited to the jail environment; officers do not perform community patrols or civil immigration arrests.
– Typical actions inside Plymouth include:
1. Identifying potential immigration cases during booking
2. Checking federal immigration databases
3. Preparing paperwork to place a person into removal proceedings
4. Holding individuals for transfer to federal custody
The legal basis is section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which lets ICE delegate certain powers through a formal MOA.
For official program details and the latest posted MOA language, consult ICE’s 287(g) page at https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g.
Accountability and limits:
– ICE sets the scope; the state cannot exceed MOA-authorized powers.
– Trained DOC officers remain state employees but act under ICE direction for 287(g) tasks.
– The program includes reporting requirements, audits, and training updates.
Supporters point to these guardrails as safeguards; critics say, regardless of paperwork, the result is often quicker movement into deportation proceedings and transfers far from families and lawyers.
Political pressure and the legislative push to end the pact
The political fight intensified in summer 2025.
- On July 8, 2025, activists rallied outside Governor Healey’s home urging executive action to end cooperation with ICE.
- The ACLU of Massachusetts, JALSA, and the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Coalition increased campaigns through 2025, arguing the agreement harms public safety by pushing immigrant families into the shadows.
Legislative effort:
– State Senator Adam Gomez is sponsoring Senate Bill S.997 (“Dignity not Deportation”).
– The bill would bar Massachusetts prisons and law enforcement agencies from entering or renewing any 287(g) agreement with ICE.
– Supporters argue the bill would:
– Prevent state officers from taking on federal immigration duties
– Reduce chilling effects in schools, clinics, and workplaces
Opposing views:
– Opponents, including some law enforcement voices, say the DOC pact is narrow and limited to people already in custody and helps public safety by ensuring orderly custody transfers.
– Many cities and towns emphasize community policing models that depend on trust; critics of 287(g) say local involvement in immigration enforcement undermines that trust.
The Governor had not unilaterally ended the agreement as of late August 2025, drawing criticism from advocates and some lawmakers who prefer a legislative fix to avoid policy flips with future administrations.
Community impact and daily consequences
Advocates link the state’s 287(g) setup to increased ICE activity and a pipeline from local custody to federal removal.
Community effects described by advocates:
– Fear and confusion when a relative is booked for a minor offense and then enters the immigration system
– Families struggling to find counsel or even confirm where a loved one is held
– Avoidance of public services, medical appointments, or police reporting due to perceived immigration risk
Supporters counter that:
– The MOA’s limited scope focuses on people already in custody, not community residents
– ICE would enforce federal law regardless, and the partnership helps ensure orderly transfers and public safety
National context:
– As of August 22, 2025, ICE reported hundreds of active MOAs across 40 states.
– Critics say the model blurs the line between local public safety and federal immigration work.
What the process looks like for detainees
Typical path under the 287(g) process at Plymouth:
1. A person is booked into the Plymouth County Correctional Facility.
2. Trained DOC staff check federal immigration databases.
3. If a potential case appears, officers generate documents that place the person into removal proceedings.
4. ICE can seek custody for transfer to a federal facility or to hold the individual for court.
These steps rely on federal forms and procedures and can move quickly, making it difficult for families to respond or find legal help.
Practical advice from legal aid groups:
– Keep copies of passports and court papers handy
– Record full name, date of birth, A-number (if known), and last known location
– Contact legal aid groups immediately when someone is booked
Organizations offering assistance include the ACLU of Massachusetts, JALSA, and the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Coalition.
The political and administrative paths forward
Three possible next steps could determine the agreement’s future:
- Legislature passes S.997, ending the pact and blocking future 287(g) agreements.
- Governor Healey takes executive action to unwind the program.
- ICE and the Massachusetts DOC renew or alter the MOA, keeping the program active.
Each option carries trade-offs: legal challenges, political backlash, or continued uncertainty. Advocates want transparency about any renewal, changes, or oversight mechanisms.
Important timing:
– The posted MOA covered July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025, but the program was still described as active as of late August 2025 — a fact that has intensified calls for clarity on renewals or changes.
Regional context and broader debate
- Public records and advocacy tracking show the Massachusetts DOC is the last state-level agency in New England with such a pact.
- VisaVerge.com reports the regional trend toward ending local immigration enforcement partnerships.
- Organizers use Massachusetts’ outlier status to frame the issue as one of regional values.
Arguments from both sides:
– Opponents: the agreement undercuts language access, crime reporting, and trust-building efforts in immigrant communities.
– Supporters: the DOC’s mission is custody and care; 287(g) work is limited to that mission and helps manage custody transitions.
Both sides agree the stakes are human: transfers, court dates, and detentions affect families and communities.
Recommendations for families and watchers
For families with someone booked in Plymouth:
– Keep copies of all court documents and identification
– Record and share full name, date of birth, A-number (if known), and last known location
– Contact legal aid groups quickly and keep communication lines open with counsel
For those following the policy debate:
– Watch bill hearings on S.997
– Track the Governor’s public schedule for any executive actions
– Monitor DOC updates on MOA status and any transparency disclosures
The policy currently rests on one place and one agreement: the Plymouth County Correctional Facility remains the site where state officers, working under ICE authority, carry out a narrow set of federal tasks. Whether by legislative, executive, or administrative action, the outcome will shape how immigration enforcement touches daily life in Massachusetts — and whether the Commonwealth remains the New England outlier with an active 287(g) agreement.
This Article in a Nutshell
The Massachusetts DOC continues an active 287(g) pact with ICE at Plymouth County Correctional Facility, allowing trained state officers to process potential deportation cases. Activists support S.997 to ban such agreements; alternatives include executive action or renewal. The decision will affect community trust, legal access, and custody transfers.
