As the Trump administration ramps up Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity nationwide, a new Island nonprofit is looking to help businesses protect their employees’ constitutional rights.
The Martha’s Vineyard Fourth Amendment Project (MV4A) is a volunteer-run, donation-funded initiative aimed at educating Island business owners and the public on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects against unconstitutional searches and seizures by federal agents.
MV4A co-founder Lexi Ladd told the Gazette that shoring up public knowledge of the Fourth Amendment, especially in Island workplaces, is crucial in case ICE returns to the Vineyard. ICE last descended on the Vineyard and Nantucket in May, detaining roughly 40 people.
“We witnessed a raid in the spring, and we need to be better prepared for when it happens again,” Ms. Ladd said.
Batya Diamond, another MV4A co-founder, said MV4A began as a loosely connected group of friends and neighbors who responded to May’s ICE raids. After the group attended an ACLU training on immigrants’ rights at the West Tisbury library, the beginnings of MV4A came together.
The organization is now made up of more than 60 volunteers and is growing.
“We’ve been building up a real core of many volunteers [who] go out and talk to the businesses,” Ms. Diamond said.
A key goal of MV4A’s work is increasing awareness. In addition to training employers on how to establish a protocol for ICE raids, the organization seeks to ensure everyone is aware of their constitutional right to film federal agents, remain silent, withhold documents and refuse to be searched if approached.
“It’s really important to be able to protect yourself by knowing what not to do, in addition to what you can do,” Ms. Ladd said.
The group also provides businesses with storefront signage, such as “all are welcome here” and “we know our Fourth Amendment rights” in both English and Portuguese. Additionally, employers can put up signs alerting federal agents that they are not allowed to enter without a signed judicial warrant.
Ms. Ladd and Ms. Diamond said MV4A’s approach is based on grassroots work being carried out nationally by organizations such as Siembra, a North Carolinian activist group. MV4A is also in the process of forming a partnership with LUCE, an immigrant-run, Massachusetts-based immigrant justice organization.
“We feel like we’ve enhanced some of the work that was done before and made it Island-friendly and focused,” Ms. Ladd said.
May’s ICE raid on the Vineyard, and the months of fear and uncertainty that followed, are part of a national trend as the Trump administration continues to aggressively deploy federal immigration forces nationwide. The situation has come to a head in Minneapolis, where ICE agents shot and killed two civilians amid mass protests against federal immigration forces.
“Overall, we have chaos and lawlessness, which is what Minnesota is experiencing right now,” Ms. Ladd said.
Ms. Diamond said that for some, being disconnected from the mainland can create a sense of security in times of national turmoil. But after May’s raid, that changed.
“Kids were out of school and people weren’t going food shopping,” she said.
For Ms. Ladd, MV4A’s work is not political; it’s a matter of upholding the constitutional rights that should be guaranteed to all on American soil.
“We hope that everybody, regardless of your political affiliation, can engage around protecting the Constitution,” she said. “We’re seeing it being violated across the country.”
Around 50 businesses have joined MV4A’s efforts so far. One such business is Cronig’s Market in Vineyard Haven, where owner Andrea Donnelly has put up MV4A’s signage in the window.
She said the Cronig’s team is working together on a protocol that employees can follow if ICE agents come to the store.
“There are so many immigrants on this Island,” Ms. Donnelly said. “To get something in place for employees to follow if ICE were to come to our business [is] protecting the community.”
Ms. Ladd and Ms. Diamond both said that volunteers are central to helping businesses participate in the MV4A program.
Stina Sayre, former owner of a clothing design business in Vineyard Haven, has been busy making calls to Island businesses urging them to attend trainings and put up signs.
“I think knowledge is power,” she said.
For Ms. Sayre, MV4A’s mission is closely aligned with the spirit of the Island.
“The Vineyard is a place where we do take care of each other,” she said. “I find it to be my human responsibility to participate in being a good neighbor.”
For more information, visit mv4aproject.org.
This article appears in January 30, 2026.
I read this article twice, and what struck me most was how much it assumes rather than proves.
ICE is already bound by the Fourth Amendment. That isn’t new, and it isn’t optional. Federal agents cannot enter non-public areas of a workplace without consent, a judicial warrant, or exigent circumstances. That standard has been in place for decades and is enforced by federal courts. Nothing in this article shows that those rules were ignored here.
The repeated use of the word “raid” is also doing a lot of work. I’ve yet to see a court ruling that found the May enforcement action on Martha’s Vineyard unconstitutional. ICE stated at the time that the operation targeted individuals with outstanding removal orders or active proceedings. Roughly 40 people were detained. That may be uncomfortable, but discomfort is not the same thing as illegality.
There are also broad claims here about “lawlessness” and constitutional violations across the country, but no court decisions, Inspector General reports, or consent decrees are cited. When systemic misconduct is established, those records exist. This article doesn’t point to any of them.
I’m not opposed to people knowing their rights. I am skeptical of efforts that frame federal law enforcement as presumptively acting in bad faith, or that suggest businesses should treat lawful enforcement as something to resist by default.
This isn’t political for me. I’m an independent, and I have little trust in politicians generally. Too often they speak one way to one audience and another way to the next. That makes me wary of movements that borrow constitutional language while advancing a political posture.
The Constitution isn’t defended by signage, trainings, or slogans; it’s defended by courts, facts, and adherence to the law as it actually exists.
Murray, aren’t courts around the country (most recently in Minnesota) finding that ICE regularly violates our constitutional rights?
Times have changed since ICE was on the island last spring. They have become more lawless. How can you ignore the fact that two people recently died in Minneapolis? How can you ignore the fact that a five-year-old child is in custody in Texas and has become ill in the detention center? Intimidation and cruelty has become the point, not observation of the law.
Not sure where our island police department and sheriffs department is on these issues. I do hope that there is corporation with those departments with Ice in getting illegal criminals off the island and out of the country. Hopefully this Island can all agree that if you’ve committed a crime and you’re illegal you should be deported. We have enough US citizens committing crimes, we do not need to import people to add to the problem.
I want to respond to a couple of points raised in this discussion.
Michael and Christine,
You are raising serious concerns, but they are different kinds of concerns, and I don’t think they should be treated as the same claim.
Michael: when courts find constitutional violations by federal agencies, they leave a traceable record — suppression rulings, injunctions, damages awards, consent decrees, or Inspector General reports. If there are recent court decisions holding that ICE “regularly” violates the Fourth Amendment, I would genuinely want to see them cited. Courts don’t speak in general impressions; they speak through opinions and orders. Without those, claims of routine constitutional violations remain assertions rather than legal conclusions.
Christine: deaths, illness in detention, and aggressive or intimidating enforcement tactics raise serious moral and humanitarian concerns. I don’t dismiss those, and I understand why they provoke outrage. But those concerns are analytically distinct from the narrower legal question of whether a specific enforcement action violated the Fourth Amendment. Tragic outcomes or public anger, by themselves, do not establish unconstitutional searches or seizures. Courts evaluate those questions narrowly, based on warrants, consent, scope, and exigent circumstances.
That distinction matters to me. The May enforcement action on Martha’s Vineyard was clearly frightening and disruptive, and I don’t doubt it caused real fear in the community. But I am not aware of any court ruling, injunction, or formal finding that concluded the operation itself was unconstitutional. If such a finding exists, it should be part of this discussion.
It’s also worth noting that enforcement outcomes vary widely across states and localities based on local policy choices, levels of cooperation, and judicial posture. That variability alone does not demonstrate federal lawlessness.
My point has been narrow from the start. I’m not arguing against people knowing their rights, and I’m not minimizing humanitarian concerns. I am pushing back on claims of constitutional violation that are made without reference to the kinds of evidence courts actually rely on. Without that grounding, we end up debating sentiment rather than legality — and those are not the same thing.
Thank you for volunteering teaching us about our constitutional rights. What a great place the island is to live.
We the people have responsibilities and rights. Thank you for reminding us.