Suffolk Superior Court rejects sheriffs’ attempt to use a federal detainee-privacy regulation to shield records of cooperation with federal immigration enforcement from public disclosure
Citizens for Juvenile Justice (CfJJ) has won an important victory in its effort to bring transparency to local-federal immigration enforcement collaboration. On June 23, 2026 a Suffolk Superior Court judge ruled that four Massachusetts county sheriff’s offices unlawfully withheld public records detailing their communications and coordination with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Chief Justice Michael D. Ricciuti granted CfJJ’s motions for a preliminary injunction and denied motions to dismiss filed by the Essex, Barnstable, Berkshire, and Middlesex County Sheriff’s offices. The ruling requires the sheriffs to produce records CfJJ sought under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, G.L. c. 66, including communications between sheriff’s employees and ICE or U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel, and records concerning any individual taken from a sheriff’s custody into ICE custody.
CfJJ first submitted records requests to the four sheriff’s offices in August 2025, seeking policies governing communication with ICE and DHS, recent communications between sheriff’s employees and ICE/DHS personnel, and records concerning any instance since January 20, 2025 in which a person in a sheriff’s custody was taken into ICE custody. All four sheriffs denied access, citing a federal regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 236.6, that restricts disclosure of certain detainee information.
The Court rejected that argument, finding the regulation does not apply to the sheriffs at all. The regulation governs entities that house, maintain, or hold detainees “on behalf of” ICE or DHS, or that obtain detainee information through an official or contractual relationship with such an entity. The Court found that individuals in the sheriffs’ custody are held under Massachusetts law, not on behalf of the federal government, so the regulation could not justify withholding the records. The Court also rejected the sheriffs’ secondary arguments, including that the suits were untimely, that disclosure would harm state-federal law enforcement comity, and that DHS was a necessary party to the litigation.
The Court further found that CfJJ would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, holding that delayed access to the records would deprive CfJJ of a meaningful opportunity for timely public input into ongoing legislative and municipal policy debates over civil immigration enforcement.
This decision builds on CfJJ's broader effort to uncover the extent of local collaboration with federal immigration enforcement. In April 2026, we published a report entitled ICE Out: Mapping and Resisting Local Law Enforcement Collusion with ICE in Massachusetts, based on 90 public records requests to police, sheriff and district attorney’s offices in Massachusetts. However, because the sheriff's departments withheld their communications with ICE by improperly invoking 8 C.F.R. § 236.6, the report was limited in its analysis of sheriff involvement. Overall, we found that local police, sheriffs, and courthouse staff regularly collaborate, and share information with federal immigration authorities, thereby acting as ‘force multipliers’ for ICE. This reduces trust in the justice system, short circuits ongoing legal cases, and undermines our democratic processes. The PROTECT Act, currently pending in the statehouse, begins to provide barriers between local law enforcement and the federal policing apparatus.
In response to the Court's decision, CfJJ issued the following statement:
“We’re happy with the Court’s decision and look forward to shedding additional light on the nature and extent of local law enforcement’s collaboration with the federal agenda. It is not currently illegal for Massachusetts sheriffs to collaborate with the current administration’s mass deportation agenda. But as the Court rightly concluded, it is illegal for the sheriffs to hide records related to that collaboration behind a specious invocation of a federal regulation that plainly does not apply to them or the people they hold. The Massachusetts legislature should understand the extent and nature of the sheriffs’ collaboration as it works to pass the PROTECT Act through reconciliation, just as the public should understand the nature and extent of that collaboration when each sheriff next stands for election. These are precisely the vital democratic interests the Public Records Law was designed to serve. The decision today vindicates these interests and should permit any member of the public, not just CFJJ, to seek out all kinds of communications between ICE and the sheriffs as public records.”
This decision represents an important victory for transparency and public accountability. It reinforces the public's right to access information about local law enforcement's collaboration with ICE, information that is essential for community advocacy, democratic oversight, and informed policymaking.
The case is Citizens for Juvenile Justice v. Essex County Sheriff’s Department (and consolidated cases), Suffolk Superior Court, C.A. Nos. 2684CV00600, 2684CV00738, 2684CV00739, and 2684CV00740.
CfJJ in the Media