House Democrats resoundingly rejected a Republican-led effort Wednesday afternoon to reform a 2017 court ruling that bars law enforcement in Massachusetts from detaining people based solely on suspected civil immigration violations.

During the second day of debate on the House’s $61 billion fiscal year 2026 budget, lawmakers engaged in what was likely an early preview of the back-and-forth over proposed reforms to a Supreme Judicial Court ruling that Republicans have set their sights on this session.

Rep. Paul Frost, an Auburn Republican, unsuccessfully pushed legislators to sign off on a proposal that would have allowed local law enforcement to detain someone wanted by federal immigration authorities for up to 12 hours after their court proceedings end.

Frost said the amendment to the state budget plan was modeled after language originally filed by former Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, and would provide a mechanism for law enforcement in courts to detain people involved in violent crimes.

“It’s unconscionable that we simply let these violent individuals go once they’re done in court. And if (U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) does put a detainer for them, we in Massachusetts will not honor it. We will not hold them,” Frost said from the House floor. “We can address that today.”

But Rep. Priscilla Sousa, a Framingham Democrat, said allowing court officials to hold someone based on a civil immigration detainer would have a chilling effect among people who are not in the country legally.

She said her family immigrated from Brazil to the United States when she was seven years old. In their quest to obtain citizenship, Sousa said her family ended up overstaying their visa, which amounted to a civil infraction and made them undocumented.

“Our life in this country was uncertain because we lived in the shadows, and every time something like what is being proposed today was brought up, we would be less trusting of law enforcement and authorities in general. We hid at home more. We stopped interacting and investing in our community, and we stopped planning for our future,” she said.

The amendment backed by Frost, which was shot down on a 25 to 131 vote, tried to target a ruling from the Supreme Judicial Court that critics have argued provides “sanctuary” protections to undocumented immigrants in Massachusetts and impedes the work of federal immigration officers. Supporters say the ruling sets clear boundaries between state and federal officials.

Multiple Republicans have filed bills this legislative term that seek to rework the ruling. Gov. Maura Healey’s secretary of public safety and homeland security said earlier this year that the decision is a “significant issue” that needs to be addressed by lawmakers.

The court decision has become a flashpoint among conservatives after a series of high-profile arrests in state-run shelters and attempts by immigration authorities to take custody of people who entered the United States illegally.

In a 34-page decision issued in 2017, SJC justices wrote that local law enforcement do not have the power to hold someone beyond the time they would otherwise be released from court custody solely on the basis of a civil immigration detainer issued by federal authorities.

That means that local law enforcement and court officers must release people even if ICE officers have lodged a civil immigration detainer as part of deportation proceedings.

Detainers generally ask local authorities to hold someone who would otherwise be entitled to release for up to two days in order for immigration officials to arrive and take the person into their custody for removal proceedings.

Justices ruled that holding someone against their will based on a civil immigration detainer constituted an arrest under Massachusetts law.

The justices did not decide whether the arrests based on civil detainers, if they were authorized under state law, would be permissible under the U.S. Constitution or the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

Instead, the justices ruled that local authorities do not have the inherent authority to arrest someone based on a civil immigration detainer issued and largely left it up to lawmakers to decide whether to further clarify state law.

“The prudent course is not for this court to create, and attempt to define, some new authority for court officers to arrest that heretofore has been unrecognized and undefined. The better course is for us to defer to the Legislature to establish and carefully define that authority if the Legislature wishes that to be the law of this commonwealth,” the justices wrote in the decision.

Frost said his amendment attempted to provide that clarification.

“This amendment seeks to provide that statute, provide that mechanism,” he said. “If a violent offender is arrested, is brought to court, and is of interest to ICE, that ICE puts in a detainer for that individual, that the court can hold them up, detain them for up to 12 hours, for ICE to come and get them,” he said.

Rep. Daniel Cahill, who co-chairs the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, said there is already cooperation between federal immigration authorities and local law enforcement when a person is the subject of a criminal immigration detainer.

The Lynn Democrat argued that allowing court officials to hold people based on civil immigration detainers would “utilize state resources to assist federal agencies in civil deportations.”

“The law says here in Massachusetts, we are not to detain someone a moment, not 12 hours, not 12 seconds. When your case is concluded, you leave,” he said. “What the federal government wants us to do is expend resources to hold people beyond that time. That’s a constitutional problem.”

It appears Russell and Linda Callahan are at it again.

The couple’s 20-year pattern of behavior was the focus of an NBC10 investigation last year. We documented how the “professional tenants” scammed small property owners in Worcester County and lived in homes without paying rent.

In the wake of our reporting, authorities charged the Callahans with several felonies, which are pending in Westborough District Court.

When we last caught up to the couple in February, they were being evicted from a large complex after racking up more than $12,000 in unpaid rent, according to housing court records.

The question was: Where would the Callahans land next?

We now have that answer.

Earlier this month, a property owner in Worcester, Jimmy, rented his newly constructed duplex to the couple. Jimmy did not want to use his full name because of his job and embarrassment about not doing more due diligence prior to signing the lease.

“I gave them the keys. I trusted them,” Jimmy said. “They looked professional.”

The Callahans are professionals, just not the type that Jimmy had hoped for as tenants.

Our investigation found they have been evicted more than 20 times in Massachusetts and Florida, with unpaid rent judgments surpassing well over $100,000.

Russell and Linda Callahan have an extensive record of evictions.

Victims we spoke with include a single mom, a couple saving to have their first child, and a veteran who was overseas on his first deployment with the Navy.

Our investigation also found the legal system repeatedly brushed aside the alleged crimes as “housing court matters.”

Jimmy said the Callahans told him they were in the process of buying a new house. Instead of running a background check that could affect their credit score, they asked if their mortgage broker could send Jimmy their financial records.

The documents arrived via secure message and Jimmy said they appeared to be legit.

“Everything looked really good,” Jimmy said. “Great background check. Great credit history. There was pretty substantial income between both of them.”

However, like other landlords we interviewed, Jimmy would later learn the documents were fake.
By the time the Callahans were already inside the Worcester property, nearly $10,000 in rental checks bounced.

After repeated excuses about why the funds weren’t available, Jimmy said he got suspicious and decided to Google the Callahans. He was horrified to see a slew of NBC10 headlines about the “professional tenants.”

“I could not believe what had happened,” Jimmy said.

After speaking with Jimmy, the NBC10 Investigators checked out the property and saw Linda Callahan behind the wheel of a moving van.

Even though Jimmy said the couple had told him they would move out when he threatened to go to the police, we watched as Linda made herself at home, directing her adult son where to put the furniture.

Jimmy eventually went to the police to file a report. The case has been assigned to a detective who is investigating to see if criminal charges should be pursued, according to a Worcester police spokesperson.

New charges could have a potential impact on the Callahans’ pending case in Westborough District Court. Their next scheduled hearing is slated for June.

The Callahans did not respond to our questions about their new address when we approached them outside of court.

Advertisement

NBC10 Boston

NBC10 Boston

For now, Jimmy knows he is at the mercy of the housing court system in Massachusetts. He is in the process of filing an eviction, but knows that process can drag out for months.

The landlord said he has offered to pay for their move and get them housing for a week, just to get them out of his property.

“They keep promising they will move out,” Jimmy said. “It doesn’t look like they are going anywhere.”

Massachusetts Italian restaurant chain Bertucci’s has closed four restaurants in Massachusetts as it files for bankruptcy, once again.

Its Braintree location, on Franklin Street, has a notice put up announcing that it is “Permanently Closed” and directs customers to its locations in Hingham and West Roxbury.

“After two decades of serving this community, it is with heavy hearts that we announce our Bertucci’s Braintree location is permanently closed,” the notice states. “Thank you for your loyalty and support all these years.”

It’s the same story for its locations in Mansfield, North Andover and Norwood. The company’s website now lists only 10 locations in Massachusetts: Boston, Chelmsford, Chestnut Hill, Framingham, Hingham, Medford, Newton, Reading, Waltham and Westboro.

The restaurant once boasted some 80 locations in East Coast states. That that number has now dwindled to 16. In addition to the 10 Massachusetts locations, there is one location each in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, and Virginia and two locations in Maryland, according to the company’s directory.

Bertucci’s Restaurants, LLC, started in Somerville’s Davis Square in 1981 and is now headquartered in Boston, according to its website. However, its corporate address according to the Thursday bankruptcy filing in federal court for the Middle District of Florida is in Orlando Florida. According to court records it filed for bankruptcy previously in 2018 and 2022.

The company estimates its debts to be in the range of more than $10 million to $50 million from 200 to 999 creditors against assets in the same range.

The restaurant was the 2024 Boston Pizza Festival’s People’s Choice Winner.

Originally Published: April 27, 2025 at 3:11 PM EDT