Beacon Hill Republicans are challenging a seven-year-old court decision that restricts law enforcement in Massachusetts from detaining individuals based solely on suspected civil immigration violations. The ruling, known as the Lunn decision, was issued by the Supreme Judicial Court in July 2017 and is under scrutiny as President Trump pushes for mass deportations. Critics argue the decision provides sanctuary protections to undocumented immigrants, while supporters maintain that it does not hinder federal immigration officers’ work.
The ruling states that local law enforcement cannot hold individuals based on civil immigration detainers beyond their release time. This means that law enforcement must release individuals even if federal immigration authorities issue a detainer. Several conservatives on Beacon Hill have introduced legislation to grant local law enforcement the power to hold individuals on civil immigration detainers, sparking a larger debate on police-federal officer interactions.
Legal experts explain that the ruling does not prohibit federal officials from enforcing immigration laws but limits the authority of local authorities to make arrests based on ICE detainers. The Supreme Judicial Court emphasized that federal immigration detainers are civil in nature and not criminal arrest warrants. The court suggested that the Legislature could clarify the ruling if they pass a law modifying it.
The Lunn decision originated from the case of Sreynuon Lunn, who was held in state custody based on a civil immigration detainer even after his criminal case had been dismissed. This case raised constitutional concerns that led to the ruling. The Supreme Judicial Court emphasized the importance of deference to the Legislature in defining any new authority related to this issue.
Source
Note: The image is for illustrative purposes only and is not the original image of the presented article.