Introduction

This directive outlines the legal basis for state and local law enforcement in Massachusetts to take appropriate action, including arrest where warranted, against federal agents who violate Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268, Section 34. This statute specifically prohibits the use of disguises, including masks, to intimidate, hinder, or interrupt individuals in the free exercise of their constitutional rights.

There is significant evidence that federal agents operating within Massachusetts are acting in conflict with this state law and unlike many protected actions taken by federal agents under the supremacy clause, the use of masks to intimidate residents is not shielded from state prosecution as outlined below.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268, Section 34 states:

“Whoever disguises himself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law, or to intimidate, hinder or interrupt an officer or other person in the lawful performance of his duty, or in the exercise of his rights under the constitution or laws of the commonwealth, whether such intent is effected or not, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year and may if imprisoned also be bound to good behavior for one year after the expiration of such imprisonment.”

When ICE agents conduct operations in Massachusetts while masked—particularly in cases involving the use of masks while detaining non-criminal residents, or ordering protestors to disperse—such conduct results in the intimidation or obstruction of individuals exercising their rights violating this statute.

Federal actions often supersede state law due to the supremacy clause of article VI in the US constitution, however, the supremacy clause does not apply in this case. The Ninth Circuit's ruling in Idaho v. Horiuchi established a two-pronged test to determine whether a federal officer is immune from state prosecution under the Supremacy Clause:

1. The federal officer was acting within the scope of their official duties, and
2. The officer’s actions were necessary and proper to the performance of those duties.

While immigration enforcement falls within the lawful duties of ICE and other federal agencies, the use of masks for intimidation purposes is not necessary nor proper. This is evident because immigration enforcement is routinely and effectively carried out by unmasked agents. The optional use of masks serves no compelling enforcement necessity; instead, it appears calculated to intimidate and disrupt communities.

Given the legal framework outlined above, it is both appropriate and lawful for Massachusetts state and local police to arrest ICE agents and other federal agents who violate Chapter 268, Section 34, especially when:

1. Agents are masked or disguised in a manner clearly designed to intimidate residents; and
2. Their conduct interrupts or hinders the free exercise of constitutional rights.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a compelling interest in protecting all individuals within its jurisdiction—regardless of immigration status—from government overreach, intimidation, and unlawful action. Therefore, state and local officers must act to uphold the laws of Massachusetts and protect the civil liberties of all persons within the Commonwealth.