BOSTON— If Massachusetts were a Monopoly board, Governor Maura Healey just slapped down a fresh rule card: Federal agents, do not pass Go.

Healey on Wednesday filed a sweeping bill that would carve out large parts of everyday life — schools, hospitals, churches, and courthouses — as official ICE-free zones, sharply limiting where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can operate in the Bay State without a judge’s approval.

Under the proposal, ICE agents would be required to obtain a judicial warrant before making civil immigration arrests in so-called “sensitive locations,” effectively placing some of the most common public spaces off-limits to routine federal enforcement.

Healey has repeatedly insisted that Massachusetts is not a sanctuary state — a line her administration continues to lean on even as some of the state’s largest cities tell a very different story. Boston, along with several other municipalities, already operates as a sanctuary city, limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and declining to honor ICE detainer requests. Critics argue that Healey’s new ICE-free zones bill only deepens that contradiction, turning what is officially denied at the state level into policy in practice.

Healey framed the move as a moral necessity, arguing that immigration enforcement has created fear and discouraged people from sending their kids to school, seeking medical care, or showing up to court. Supporters praised the bill as compassionate and protective. Critics blasted it as sanctuary policy on steroids.

The bill would also block state agencies from allowing ICE to use state-owned property for enforcement operations and further restrict cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities — tightening an already limited relationship.

What the legislation does not do is draw a clear line between non-violent immigration cases and criminal offenders — even as ICE insists its enforcement efforts are focused overwhelmingly on individuals with criminal records.

Federal officials have repeatedly said recent operations nationwide have resulted in the arrest of thousands of criminal offenders, including individuals charged with assault, drug trafficking, weapons offenses, and domestic violence. Critics argue that Healey’s bill undercuts those claims by making it harder to carry out arrests in controlled environments like courthouses, where defendants are already present and enforcement can occur without raids or public disruption.

Courthouses, in particular, have become a flashpoint. Supporters of the bill argue that arrests in or near courts deter victims and witnesses from participating in the justice system. Opponents counter that courts are among the safest places for arrests — with security already in place and no risk of foot chases through neighborhoods.

Healey’s proposal lands amid a broader national backlash against immigration enforcement, as blue-state leaders seek to erect state-level barriers to federal policy. In Massachusetts, the move is already drawing sharp reactions from law-enforcement advocates who warn it could make the state less safe by limiting cooperation with federal authorities.

Democratic leaders on Beacon Hill have signaled openness to the proposal, setting up a fast-moving political fight as the bill heads into the Legislature.

Supporters argue the bill restores basic protections and prevents fear from hollowing out public institutions. Critics respond that it sends a dangerous signal — that Massachusetts is more focused on blocking federal enforcement than addressing who is being arrested and why.

As lawmakers take up Healey’s ICE-free zones bill, one thing is clear: the governor isn’t hedging or soft-pedaling. She’s drawing a bright line — and daring Washington to cross it.

Whether that line protects communities — or shields criminals from enforcement — is the debate now barreling straight toward Beacon Hill.