Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session

Massachusetts House Bill H2309

Introduced
2/27/25  

Caption

Relative to sanctuary cities and towns

Impact

Should H2309 pass, it will establish a clear requirement for local governments regarding immigration status checks and cooperation with federal authorities. Municipalities that do not comply may face significant financial repercussions, as the bill stipulates that non-compliant local governments will have their unrestricted general government aid reduced. The severity of this reduction will depend on the population size of the noncompliant political subdivision. For smaller towns with populations under 10,000, noncompliance could lead to a loss of $2,000 in aid, while larger cities could see reductions up to $15,000 for larger populations.

Summary

House Bill H2309 seeks to address the issue of sanctuary cities and towns in Massachusetts by mandating that local political subdivisions enforce federal immigration laws. The bill explicitly prohibits cities and towns from enacting policies that would prevent their employees from inquiring about the immigration status of individuals under lawful detention or arrest. Furthermore, it requires these municipalities to cooperate with federal immigration officials, including providing assistance in enforcement actions and allowing federal officers access to municipal facilities for immigration activities.

Contention

The bill has spurred considerable debate among legislators and community members. Supporters argue that it is a necessary measure to ensure that local governments fulfill their obligations under federal law, particularly as it pertains to immigration enforcement. Critics, however, contend that the bill infringes on local autonomy and could lead to discriminatory practices against immigrant communities. Concerns have been raised about the potential negative impact on public safety and community relations, as the enforcement of such policies may deter individuals from reporting crimes or seeking help from law enforcement due to fear of deportation.

Companion Bills

MA H4970

Replaced by Municipal powers, permitting and zoning

Previously Filed As

MA HB0133

Sanctuary cities, counties and state-prohibition.

MA SB685

Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act

MA HB3881

Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act

MA H3004

Authorizing cities and towns to provide a residential exemption to senior citizens

MA HB32

No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act

MA SB707

No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act

MA HB1879

No Tax Breaks for Sanctuary Cities Act

MA HB4565

No DOT Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act

MA HB7423

No Sanctuary Cities Act of 2026

MA HB2931

Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025

Similar Bills

CA AB2570

Elderly Parole Program.

MN SF1826

Payment rates establishment for certain substance use disorder treatment services

MN HF1994

Payment rates established for certain substance use disorder treatment services, and vendor eligibility recodified for payments from the behavioral health fund.

TX HB1080

Relating to the publication of required notice by a political subdivision by alternative media.

CA SB680

Sex offender registration: unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

CA AB387

An act to amend Section 219 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to juries.

CA SB689

Local jurisdictions: district-based elections.

US HB31

Cover Outstanding Vulnerable Expansion-eligible Residents Now Act or the COVER Now Act This bill establishes a demonstration program to allow local governments to provide health benefits to the Medicaid expansion population in states that have not expanded Medicaid. Under the program, local governments may provide coverage for individuals who are newly eligible for Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e., the Medicaid expansion population) for a maximum of 10 years, or until their respective states expand Medicaid. The bill provides a 100% federal matching rate for the first three years of program participation. The bill prohibits states from taking certain actions against participating localities, such as withholding funding, increasing taxes, or restricting provider participation. States that violate these requirements are subject to certain funding penalties.