WASHINGTON DC — Every single Massachusetts Democrat in Congress voted NO on a bill named after an autistic woman killed by an illegal immigrant — legislation that would have required tougher screening and background checks for gang-linked migrant teens before they are released into American communities.

The bill, formally known as the Kayla Hamilton Act, passed the U.S. House in a 225–201 vote with Republican support but was unanimously opposed by the entire Massachusetts Democratic delegation, with all nine members voting against it.

Those lawmakers were: Richard Neal, Jim McGovern, Lori Trahan, Jake Auchincloss, Katherine Clark, Seth Moulton, Ayanna Pressley, Stephen Lynch, and Bill Keating.

The legislation was named after Kayla Hamilton, a 20-year-old autistic woman murdered in 2022 by a 16-year-old illegal immigrant from El Salvador who had entered the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor. Prosecutors said the teen had ties to the violent MS-13 gang.

Supporters of the bill say it was designed to prevent that exact scenario from happening again.

Under the measure, federal authorities would have been required to conduct stronger screening of unaccompanied migrant minors, including checks for gang affiliation, violent history, and other risk indicators, before releasing them from federal custody. Minors flagged as high-risk or gang-linked would not be released to sponsors and instead placed in secure federal facilities.

The bill also would have mandated background checks on adult sponsors seeking custody of unaccompanied minors and blocked placement with undocumented sponsors in cases involving clear public-safety risks.

Democrats opposing the bill argued it would unfairly stigmatize migrant children and treat vulnerable minors like criminals. Supporters countered that the legislation did not criminalize children but imposed basic safeguards to prevent dangerous individuals from being released without scrutiny.

Despite the bill’s narrow focus and its connection to a real, deadly case, Massachusetts Democrats voted NO across the board — no abstentions, no exceptions.

The vote places the entire Massachusetts Democratic delegation on record opposing legislation tied directly to the killing of an autistic woman and aimed at tightening screening protocols that many voters assume already exist.

For supporters, the question remains straightforward: if a bill named after a murdered autistic woman — requiring basic screening and background checks for gang-linked teens — can’t earn a single Democratic vote from Massachusetts, what possibly could?