Bristol County sheriff says ICE tried to pressure his office into violating state and federal law

DARTMOUTH — Bristol County Sheriff Paul Heroux said ICE Boston made a partisan political statement on X and attempted to pressure or intimidate his office into violating state and federal law.

Heroux’s statement came after a post ICE Boston made on X on July 2 claiming the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office did not honor an ICE detainer.

“For what reason would ICE post this other than to try to intimidate this office or shame or pressure us into compliance with their unlawful request,” Heroux said in a statement issued Monday. “ICE ‘detainers’ are not actual obligatory detainers or a legal requirement; they are requests made by ICE, and if honored without a 287(g) contract, would be a violation of state law and federal law.”

Heroux said ICE is well aware that Massachusetts sheriffs are bound by those legal limits.

“ICE knows that we are bound by state law,” Heroux said. “In fact, at the monthly Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association meeting, US Attorney Leah Foley, told all 14 Massachusetts Sheriffs on 12 March 2025, ‘You are bound by state law.’”

The ICE Boston post said the Bristol County House of Corrections released Martinez-Alvardo without honoring the ICE detainer and added that ICE Boston “will do what sanctuary politicians will not: keep dangerous criminals off our streets.”

In Massachusetts, Heroux said, the governing state precedent is the Supreme Judicial Court’s 2017 decision in Lunn v. Commonwealth, which holds that Massachusetts law does not authorize state or local officials to hold someone solely on the basis of a federal civil immigration detainer after that person is otherwise entitled to release.

“This means that ICE detainers be damned,” Heroux said. “The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association are in agreement about this interpretation. Hardly a liberal organization, the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police issued their own statement on Lunn stating that police are bound by the Lunn decision.”

Heroux also cited the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. United States, which limited states’ ability to enforce federal immigration law without federal authorization.

More: Local police don’t enforce immigration laws because it’s against the law

Heroux compared the issue to federal agents enforcing local traffic laws, saying state and local law enforcement similarly cannot enforce federal immigration law without proper authority.

Heroux said the existence of the 287(g) program, which trains and deputizes local officials to assist with immigration enforcement under a formal agreement, shows that such assistance without that agreement would be unlawful.

“My office and I follow state and federal laws,” Heroux said. “In the absence of identifying which law or laws my office is in violation of, all citizens should conclude ICE’s post on X was a political statement, not a reflection of any dereliction of duty on the part of this office or its employees.”

Heroux criticized ICE’s conduct as “unprofessional,” “highly partisan” and “political,” and called on those involved in the post to follow state and federal law or resign.

“ICE continues to operate in an unprofessional highly partisan and political manner as evidenced by their July 2, 2026, post on X,” Heroux said. “I call on everyone associated with the decision to attack the lawful conduct of my office to either read and adhere to the U.S. Constitution and all state and federal laws, or resign, as they are unfit either because they are unwilling or unable to follow state and or federal laws. Even with new leadership in the wake of the firing of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, it remains amateur hour at ICE.”