WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 3083

Order relative to requesting the opinions of the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court on important questions of law relative to promoting rule of law, oversight, trust and equal constitutional treatment

194th Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by Kelly Dooner and 2 co-sponsors

Massachusetts seeks advisory opinions on whether a proposed state-law suit against federal officers and certain immigration-arrest restrictions conflict with federal law and the Su

Referred to the committee on Senate Rules
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 3083

Purpose and overall aim

  • The bill seeks an official opinion from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) on key legal questions raised by Senate Amendment No. 3072 to House Bill 5316, titled “An Act promoting rule of law, oversight, trust and equal constitutional treatment.”
  • The central concern is whether certain provisions creating a state-law cause of action against federal officers and certain immigration enforcement restrictions are consistent with the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause, and with federal immigration law and jurisprudence.

Key provisions and changes under consideration

  • Trigger for SJC opinions: The Senate requests advisory opinions from the SJC on three main issues related to Senate Amendment No. 3072.
  • Issue 1 – Federal preemption of a state-law civil action against federal officers:
    • Senate Amendment No. 3072 would create a state-law cause of action allowing individuals to sue federal officers in Massachusetts state court for alleged constitutional rights violations.
    • The question for the SJC: Does this state-law cause of action violate the Supremacy Clause given the federal framework (including the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Westfall Act, and Webster v. Bivens limitations) and doctrines of field preemption, obstacle preemption, or intergovernmental immunity?
  • Issue 2 – Federal preemption of immigration enforcement restrictions:
    • The amendment would impose limits on civil immigration arrests in certain settings (childcare facilities, schools, health care facilities, and courts).
    • The question for the SJC: Do these restrictions violate the Supremacy Clause under field preemption or obstacle preemption?
  • Issue 3 – Obstacle preemption under Arizona v. United States:
    • The question for the SJC: Do the amendment’s restrictions conflict with federal immigration law or federal objectives in a way that would render the bill invalid under obstacle preemption as articulated in Arizona v. United States?

Who or what would be affected

  • State-level action against federal officers: If enacted, the bill’s section creating a state-law cause of action against federal officers would affect individuals seeking remedies in Massachusetts courts for alleged federal constitutional rights violations.
  • Immigration enforcement practices: The bill’s targeted restrictions on civil immigration arrests in specific settings would affect federal immigration enforcement activities within Massachusetts in those contexts.
  • Legal authority and preemption analysis: The questions require the SJC to interpret the interaction between Massachusetts state law and federal law, potentially shaping how similar provisions are evaluated in the future.

Procedural and timeline notes

  • Status: The bill contains an “order” for the SJC to issue opinions on the three questions specified.
  • Action history: On May 7, 2026, a motion to suspend rules did not prevail (Roll Call #153: Yeas 5, Nays 35); the measure was referred to the Senate Rules Committee.
  • Sponsors: Primary sponsor is Senator Tarr, with co-sponsors Senator Kelly Dooner, Senator Bruce Tarr, and Senator Ryan Fattman.
  • Context: The questions arise in the context of Senate Amendment No. 3072 to House Bill 5316; the broader bill is titled “An Act promoting rule of law, oversight, trust and equal constitutional treatment,” currently pending before the Senate.

Practical implications

  • Judicial guidance: If the SJC issues opinions, these could significantly influence whether Massachusetts may pursue a state-law remedy against federal officers and how Massachusetts can regulate or restrict certain immigration-enforcement actions without conflicting with federal law.
  • Legislative risk assessment: The opinions could affect the desirability or viability of the underlying amendments, depending on whether constitutional barriers (preemption or obstacle preemption) are affirmed.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.