Bristol County Sheriff Heroux states its amateur hour at ICE, believes agency is trying to intimidate, shame, or pressure his office to break the law

There is no love lost between ICE and Massachusetts authorities as was evident again on Monday.

In a post on X on Thursday, ICE Boston made what Bristol County Sheriff Paul Heroux states was “a partisan political statement and tried to pressure of intimidate me and my Office to break state and federal law.”

ICE stated that the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office did not honor an ICE detainer. Something ICE has accused Massachusetts officials of often and has led to similar responses to the one Heroux gave on Monday.

“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. 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. ICE knows that we are bound by state law. 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.””

Heroux then supplied the following:

“The law surrounding ICE detainers:

·        Lunn V Commonwealth (2017): the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court ruled that local and state police and county sheriffs are not allowed to hold anyone past when they post bail or when the court sets the release date. This means that ICE detainers be damned. 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. 

·        Arizona V United States (2012): the US Supreme Court ruled that state governments are not allowed to enforce federal immigration law; states do not have the authority or jurisdiction.

“For example, it is in the same manner that the FBI doesn’t have the authority to issue speeding tickets on city or state streets, the state and city law enforcement cannot enforce federal law, including immigration law. Hence, holding an immigration violator for violating federal immigration law once they have posted bail or the court has said they need to be released is doing federal law enforcement.

“Furthermore, the fact that a 287(g) program exists that trains and deputizes local and state police and sheriffs to assist with immigration enforcement suggests that assistance in the absence of this contract would be unlawful. ICE knows this but based on the X post doesn’t seem to care about local or state police or sheriffs following the law.

“My Office and I follow state and federal laws. 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.

“ICE continues to operate in an unprofessional highly partisan and political manner as evidenced by their 7/2/2026 post on X. I call on everyone associated with the decision to attack the lawful conduct of my Office to either read and adhere to the US 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 hours in ICE.”

Heroux made a similar declaration in February of 2025 when criticism began of Massachusetts law enforcement concerning ICE detainers.