Boston — On Monday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) heard oral arguments in three criminal cases that highlight the clash between state courts and federal immigration enforcement. The justices focused on whether prosecutors must inform judges when ICE plans to arrest a defendant, and what authority state judges have to compel ICE to return a detainee for trial.

Case of Wilson Martell‑Lebron sparks heated debate

Dominican national Wilson Martell‑Lebron was arrested by an ICE agent outside a Worcester courthouse in the middle of his trial. The agent had been listed as a prosecution witness. Judge Mark Summerville ruled that the arrest violated Martell‑Lebron’s due‑process rights and dismissed the criminal charge, calling the conduct “egregious prosecutorial misconduct.” The Suffolk County district attorney appealed.

During the SJC hearing, Justice Frank Gaziano expressed skepticism toward the prosecution’s claim that they lacked knowledge of the ICE detention, noting, “I’m not buying your argument that he’s not a member of the prosecution team after the discovery stage.” Justice Gabrielle Wolohojian added that an ICE agent who is part of the prosecution team “caused the defendant’s unavailability for trial,” which she said constitutes misconduct.

State officials argue ICE operates independently

Assistant District Attorney Elisabeth Martino told the justices that ICE actions are a “separate, sovereign, federal action” and that the burden under existing law falls on federal agents to inform the court of any planned arrest. She also noted that the PROTECT Act, passed this year, sets guidelines for ICE operations in “sensitive locations” such as courthouses but does not require prosecutors to alert the court to potential immigration actions.

Chief Justice Kimberly Budd asked, “Why wouldn’t the prosecution give the judge the information it has?” She acknowledged the court’s limited power to intervene but emphasized the importance of transparency so judges can manage their dockets effectively.

Other cases illustrate procedural gaps

In the case of Freslet Noralus, charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, a state district court judge declined to issue a writ of habeas corpus after learning the defendant was being held in a Kentucky detention facility. The court’s refusal led to a default judgment and ultimately to Noralus’s deportation to Haiti. Attorney David Rassoul Rangaviz argued that state courts should retain the ability to issue writs even when a defendant is out of state, to prevent default judgments that punish defendants for circumstances beyond their control.

Another case involved Jaime Loredo, arrested on drug charges in 2025. After posting bail, Loredo was detained by ICE and moved to Virginia. ICE ignored a state writ seeking his virtual appearance, and the federal government deported him before trial. The state prosecutor did not pursue a supplemental federal writ, leaving Loredo’s charges unresolved.

Implications for Massachusetts courts

Attorney General’s brief submitted to the SJC asserts that state trial courts can issue writs to bring a detained person back for the next court appearance. If federal officials refuse, state prosecutors may request a supplemental federal writ from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Rangaviz warned that at least 30 Massachusetts criminal cases are currently in a holding pattern, with “outstanding default warrants, absent defendants, no end in sight.” He urged the high court to clarify that state writs remain valid even when ICE detains a defendant out of state, and that courts should not issue dismissals with prejudice without exhausting all procedural remedies.

What the SJC could decide

Should the court rule that prosecutors must disclose potential ICE actions and that state writs retain force despite federal detention, Massachusetts judges would gain a tool to protect defendants’ rights and keep criminal cases from being derailed by immigration enforcement. Such a decision would reinforce the principle of due process while respecting the separate sovereign authority of federal agencies.

Conversely, a ruling that limits state courts’ ability to intervene could leave dozens of defendants vulnerable to default judgments and prolonged legal limbo, a scenario many legal observers see as contrary to the fair‑trial guarantees enshrined in both state and federal law.

Original reporting: This Week in Worcester — read the source article.