February 27, 2026

Plymouth Select Board Members

c/o Town Clerk

26 Court Street

Plymouth, MA 02360

Re: In Response to Sheriff McDonald’s Letter Regarding the Plymouth County ICE Contract

Dear Members of the Select Board,

We are writing in response to Sheriff Joseph D. McDonald Jr.’s December 15, 2025 letter concerning Plymouth County Correctional Facility’s contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Our purpose is not to debate federal immigration policy, but to address several claims in the Sheriff’s letter where only part of the public record is being presented. This matter deserves careful scrutiny because it concerns a discretionary local contract, repeated findings by oversight bodies, and the treatment of people held in Plymouth County’s custody.

1. Precedent is being misused.

The Sheriff cites long-standing cooperation with ICE as justification for continuing the contract. However, he has held this office since 2004: the contract with ICE was initiated in 2008. The “precedent” being invoked is therefore largely the product of his own decision-making. Longevity alone does not determine whether a policy is appropriate or responsible. The persistence of concerns over decades warrants re-examination of harm and responsibility, rather than continued reliance on precedent to dismiss them.

2. Documented findings conflict with the picture presented.

In September 2024, Boston University School of Law and Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts released a comprehensive report documenting twenty-five years of violations at Plymouth’s ICE units. The report draws on inspections, grievances, civil rights complaints, litigation records, and interviews with more than sixty detained individuals. It documents persistent allegations of inadequate medical and mental health care, misuse of isolation, exposure to cold and unsanitary conditions, retaliation for filing complaints, racial discrimination, and restricted access to counsel. These are not isolated incidents but long-standing patterns confirmed by multiple sources.

Individuals held under ICE authority are civil detainees, and many have no criminal convictions at all. Civil detention is subject to heightened obligations of care, due process, and access to medical and legal services, including conditions that protect health, dignity, and access to counsel.

3. Listing services is not the same as providing access.

The Sheriff’s letter lists numerous services the facility can provide, including medical care, legal access, interpretation services, recreation, and communication with family. However, the existence of a service on paper does not mean that it is consistently provided, meaningfully accessible, or available without delay, coercion, or retaliation. The BU and Prisoners’ Legal Services report documents repeated gaps between written policy and lived reality, particularly in medical care, access to specialists, disability accommodations, language access, and confidential legal communication.

Recent documentation raises serious concerns about failures to provide legally required disability accommodations and to follow medical orders, including documented denials of requested warm clothing in cold conditions and deficiencies in medical treatment. These failures expose Plymouth County to significant liability under federal disability law.

4. Inspections do not say what the letter suggests they say.

The Sheriff highlights a Department of Public Health complaint-based investigation related to air temperature conducted on January 13, 2025. That investigation addressed a narrow issue and did not assess overall conditions, medical access, retaliation, isolation practices, or access to counsel. While the Sheriff characterizes the inspection as finding “no deficiencies,” the report nonetheless includes recommendations for routine temperature monitoring and a formal written clothing policy. These recommendations mirror those made months earlier in the September 2024 BU report and indicate unresolved concerns.

More importantly, in subsequent comprehensive inspections, DPH identified overcrowding and cell-space violations. In formal responses, the Sheriff disputed those findings rather than remedying the conditions, arguing that inspectors misunderstood bunk configurations and space calculations. Disputes over terminology in response to identified problems undermine the function of inspections as a safeguard.

Additionally, when individuals face retaliation for filing grievances, complaint-based inspections become unreliable, as fear of reprisal suppresses reporting and obscures the full scope of harm, including what detainees are willing to share with inspectors.

5. Proximity to family is not guaranteed in practice.

The Sheriff suggests that holding people at Plymouth keeps them closer to their families and attorneys. In practice, individuals detained at PCCF are frequently transferred, sometimes out of state and often with little notice. Detainees may be moved abruptly to other detention facilities or transported to airfields for transfer, disrupting contact with family members, interrupting legal representation, and breaking continuity of medical care. 

Moreover, ICE detention does not function as a predictable or community-responsive use of jail capacity. Bed utilization, length of detention, and detainee transfers are controlled by federal authorities rather than local officials. As a result, neither detainees nor the county can rely on stability or continuity. Local officials have limited ability to plan staffing, medical services, or long-term operations around a population that can be relocated on short notice at federal discretion. A local bed, under these conditions, does not ensure local stability or sustained access to counsel, and it undermines claims that ICE detention provides a reliable or community-centered use of county jail space.

6.  Local Policy Authority Is Distinct From Federal Lawmaking

Although federal immigration enforcement itself falls outside the Sheriff’s authority, entering into and renewing a five-year contract with ICE is a discretionary local policy choice. While the Sheriff does not set federal law, he does determine whether Plymouth County elects to host civil immigration detention through a voluntary contractual agreement. That decision carries local legal, financial, and ethical responsibilities and risks associated with operating a civil detention program within a county correctional facility. This is particularly concerning in light of the well-documented and ongoing concerns associated with this form of detention.

7. ICE Detention Creates Added Local and Fiscal Burdens

Plymouth County is the only county in Massachusetts using jail space for civil immigration detention, an atypical use that brings additional legal, oversight, and compliance burdens not otherwise inherent to criminal detention. Civil immigration detention is among the most resource-intensive forms of custody, particularly due to heightened medical, staffing, and compliance requirements. These additional obligations exist specifically because immigration detention is civil rather than criminal, and reporting by The Plymouth Independent has noted the potential for alternative uses of Plymouth County Correctional Facility bed space.

While the practice of immigration detention at PCCF has existed for many years, the scale and risk profile have changed. Expanded use of ICE beds, a higher average daily detainee population, and increased public and legal scrutiny have significantly raised these compliance and oversight burdens. These are community costs specific to civil immigration detention and they are borne locally, while the associated revenue, according to the Sheriff, flows to the state rather than the county.

8. The ICE contract is not immutable.

Contrary to the implication that continuation is unavoidable, the Boston University and Prisoners’ Legal Services report explicitly identifies termination of Plymouth’s ICE contract as a lawful and appropriate course of action. Under the terms of ICE contracts and applicable state oversight frameworks, termination is permitted when violations persist. This contract exists by choice, and it can be ended by choice.

Conclusion

If conditions are truly humane, then independent inspections with unimpeded access, public reporting of grievance outcomes, and full transparency regarding finances and transfers should not be controversial; they should be welcomed. The evidence from inspections, civil rights investigations, legal organizations, and detained people themselves tells a far more troubling story than the one presented in the Sheriff’s letter.

We urge the Select Board to adopt a public resolution calling on the Plymouth County Sheriff to terminate the ICE detention contract, to formally communicate that position to county and state officials, and to request full transparency regarding conditions, transfers, and oversight at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility.

Respectfully submitted,

United for Plymouth

United for Plymouth*

With support from:

BIJAN
Bridgewater Communities for Civil Rights
Cape Cod Women for Change
Falmouth Immigrant Rights Coalition
Fuerza Waltham
Indivisible Outer Cape
Indivisible Plymouth
Indivisible Scituate
Indivisible Upper Cape
Lower Cape Indivisible
Mass 50501
Mid Cape Indivisible
Prisoner’s Legal Services
South Shore Indivisible
UU Mass Action
Wareham for Law and Democracy
Worcester Indivisible

Publicly Available Resources and Citations

1. Plymouth Independent. “Sheriff says ICE detainees better off in Plymouth jail.” December 16, 2025. https://www.plymouthindependent.org/sheriff-says-ice-detainees-better-off-in-plymouth-jail/

2. Boston University School of Law & Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts.
   ICE Detention at Plymouth County Correctional Facility: 25 Years of Documented Harm. September 2024.
   
   

3. Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
   Complaint-Based Investigation with Air Testing, Plymouth County Correctional Facility. January 13, 2025.
   
   

4. Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
   Comprehensive Facility Inspections, Plymouth County Correctional Facility. February 27–28, 2025.
   
   

5. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
   Expert Recommendations Memo to ICE Concerning Plymouth County Correctional Facility. September 29, 2022.
   
   

6. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
   Summary of CRCL Recommendations and ICE’s Response: Plymouth County Correctional Facility. February 8, 2024.
   
   

7. U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Edward J. Markey.
   Oversight and follow-up letters to DHS and ICE regarding PCCF. January 2022; August 2024.
   
   

8. Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts, and partner organizations.
   Civil rights complaints and supplemental submissions regarding PCCF. 2023–2024.
   
   

Massachusetts League of Women Voters.

Immigration Detention in the Commonwealth. Public testimony and video