The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will hear cases to determine if state courts can issue writs of habeas corpus to immigration authorities and how to handle defendants detained by ICE during criminal proceedings, setting guidance for future interactions with federal enforcement.

Lower courts show a split: one judge denied a habeas writ because ICE held the defendant outside Massachusetts, while another ordered virtual appearances and ICE later deported the defendant; the SJC could clarify when writs are permissible and how communications with federal authorities should work.

Core questions for the SJC include when lower courts may issue writs, whether prosecutors must seek federal habeas relief, and how to balance judicial process with federal immigration enforcement.

In a separate case, Wilson Martell-Lebron was arrested by ICE mid-trial, leading to case dismissal and raising questions about prosecutors’ duties and ICE conduct, including whether prosecutors must inform the court of impending ICE actions.

Massachusetts prosecutors report a surge in immigration-related arrests at or near courthouses in 2025—614 arrests, more than double 2024—sparking policy responses, including a 2026 law restricting civil immigration arrests at state courthouses.

The Freslet Noralus matter questions the court’s approach to writs and the jurisdictional reach of state courts, while Jaime Loredo’s case involved multiple writs ignored by ICE and a deportation before trial.

The cases also address how to proceed when a defendant cannot appear due to ICE custody, including whether courts should dismiss cases under such circumstances.

A central issue is whether state-court writs are mere requests to federal authorities or binding actions, and what obligations prosecutors and the attorney general have to seek or enforce these writs.