Bristol County Sheriff settles 2022 lawsuit after use of force at ICE detention center was deemed excessive and violated the detainees’ civil rights

Bristol County Sheriff Paul Heroux announced Monday that he has settled the April 2022 $10 million lawsuit brought against Thomas Hodgson and the BCSO stemming from a significant incident at the ICE detention center in May 2020 for $800,000, without using taxpayer money.

Under the previous Sheriff, the BCSO had a 287(g) contract and a contract to house immigration detainees. However, the BCSO lost both contracts with ICE in 2021 after an investigation into the significant incident at the BCSO ICE detention center in May 2020. (See video below)

Heroux issued the following statement with details and a timeline.

“In January 2023, I took office as Sheriff of the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO), and among other matters, had to resolve this $10 million lawsuit announced in April 2022.

“In February 2023, I hired Attorney Bill Breen, an outside counsel who had extensive experience in this type of civil rights lawsuit to assist with the lawsuit. The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office recommended Attorney Breen to the BCSO as a Special Assistant Attorney General (SAAG).

“The $800,000 settlement did not use taxpayer money. I decided to use money earned by the BCSO for performing civil process work. Civil process is work done by BCSO deputies including, but not limited to, court authorized evictions for private parties. These private parties pay a fee to the BCSO for service of legal process performed by BCSO deputy sheriffs. The civil process money that the law allows the Sheriff to use for any lawful purpose is the money I used to pay to resolve this lawsuit.

“It was necessary to use this civil process money. The federal government said that the BCSO acted as a state office and therefore the federal government was not going pay for a settlement or assist in defending us in court. The BCSO’s contract with the federal government signed under my predecessor did not protect the BCSO from liability. Meanwhile, our state government’s position is that the BCSO was acting on behalf of the federal government and therefore the federal government should pay any proposed settlements and defense attorney fees on behalf of the BCSO.

“My predecessor’s decision to involve the BCSO in immigration enforcement left the citizens of Bristol County and the taxpayers of Massachusetts exposed to legal liability. Consequently, the $800,000 settlement deprived the BCSO of funds that the BCSO was going to use for other campus improvement projects that taxpayers would not have had to pay for.

“Had we not settled but gone to trial, the $200,000 in legal fees would have likely approached about $1 million to try the case with no guarantee of victory, all paid for by taxpayers. If we lost in court, we could have been paying damages of millions of dollars, possibly in excess of $10 million with no possibility to get the plaintiff’s award from the state or federal government. Settling was the responsible thing to do to protect the employees and taxpayers.

“This settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability by the BCSO or its employees.

“In 2021, the Massachusetts Attorney general’s report found that the “BCSO violated the civil rights of the ICE detainees in two ways—(1) the BCSO’s use of force was excessive and disproportionate based on the totality of the circumstances; (2) the BCSO acted with deliberate indifference to a significant risk of serious harm to the health of several detainees.” Shortly after the Attorney General issued this report in 2021, ICE vehicles arrived on this jail’s campus and took ICE detainees, ICE computers, and all other ICE files – the BCSO lost its 287(g) contract. Then in April 2022, 16 plaintiffs filed a $10 million lawsuit against the BCSO for the violations of their civil rights.

“There were three possible outcomes of this lawsuit: 1) win in court, 2) lose in court, 3) settle. If I fight the suit in court and win, that is the end of it. But if the BCSO lost, 17 of my employees named as codefendants in this lawsuit can be held personally liable for the alleged violations of civil rights if not indemnified by the state. This could be costly to them and their families. As the senior most administrator in this organization, that is not a large gamble I can take with my employees’ future. Furthermore, if we were to lose, the plaintiffs could be awarded much more money than the amount the BCSO settled for because a jury could award virtually any amount of compensatory damages. I did not want to gamble with the taxpayers money.

“Some people may wonder why ICE detainees have any right to file a lawsuit. It is a common question. Under Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment, it states that, “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The key phrase in this is “nor deny any person.” It does not say US citizens; it says “any person.” Therefore, regardless if someone is a US citizen or not, all laws apply to all persons in an equal manner. Everyone is prosecuted for murder the same way and has the same protections. All persons accused of domestic violence are afforded the same protections and are to be prosecuted the same way. This interpretation may change if challenged in the Supreme Court. Until then this is how we follow the US Constitution’s 14^th Amendment.

“From ICE’s website, “The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 added Section 287(g) to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — authorizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to delegate to state and local law enforcement officers the authority to perform specified immigration officer functions under the agency’s direction and oversight.” This federal law essentially trains and deputizes local and state law enforcement to do some federal immigration enforcement. Therefore, in the absence of a contract under 287(g), sheriffs do not have the authority to perform federal immigration law. Sheriffs are “bound by state law”, said Trump appointed US Attorney Foley to a group of Massachusetts sheriffs in March 2025. We were told the federal government “[doesn’t] want us doing their job; just don’t get in [our] way.” We agreed.

“There are 3,142 counties in the United States but only about 80 counties have a 287(g) contract with ICE. Some states have passed laws that do not allow sheriffs to enter into a 287(g) contract, including California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Most states have at least one county that as a 287(g) contract. Some sheriffs may want to enter into a 287(g) contract with ICE.

The BCSO has about 650 inmates, all of whom are either awaiting trial for a state sentence or serving a state sentence. Since 2021, the BCSO has not held inmates for immigration violations; doing so would be in violation of state law (see Lunn v Commonwealth, 2017).”