This article reflects Maryland law as of June 2026. Two landmark protective laws are now in effect or pending. First: SB 245/HB 444, signed by Gov. Wes Moore on February 17, 2026, as emergency legislation, immediately prohibited state and local jurisdictions from entering into or maintaining 287(g) agreements with ICE. Nine counties previously had 287(g) agreements; all were required to terminate within 90 days of the signing. Second: SB 791, the Community Trust Act, passed the General Assembly on the final day of the 2026 legislative session (April 14, 2026), and became law without the governor's signature in May 2026. It takes effect October 1, 2026. The Community Trust Act prohibits local correctional facilities from honoring ICE detainer requests without a judicial warrant (with narrow exceptions for certain felony convictions), bars law enforcement from notifying ICE of a person's release or transferring custody to ICE without a court order, and prohibits inquiring about immigration status during stops, searches, or arrests. Both laws are being challenged in federal court: 17 Maryland sheriffs, backed by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland seeking to block the Community Trust Act. As of June 2026, no injunction had been issued. Verify current status with the ACLU of Maryland at aclu-md.org or We Are CASA at wearecasa.org.
Where Maryland Stands
Maryland is one of the most consequential immigration enforcement stories of the 2025-2026 period, and it sits in a unique position in this series. It is not a longstanding sanctuary state like California or Illinois. It is a state that entered 2025 with nine counties voluntarily participating in 287(g) agreements with ICE, a governor who was measured in his initial response to Trump-era enforcement, and a legislature that had repeatedly failed to pass protective immigration bills. What changed was the speed and character of federal enforcement under the Trump administration in 2025, which produced a political shift that resulted in two landmark bills in less than six months.
The editorial heart of Maryland's story is a two-act drama. Act one: the 287(g) ban, signed February 17, 2026, as an emergency bill - the first bill signed into law of the 2026 session. Act two: the Community Trust Act, passed on the last night of the legislative session in April 2026 after a rare Saturday session that stretched past midnight, allowed to become law without the governor's signature in May 2026, and immediately challenged by 17 sheriffs in federal court with backing from the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Maryland moved from a middle-ground state with active ICE jail partnerships to one of the most legally protective states in the country within a single legislative session.
The tension is also distinctive. Gov. Moore supported the 287(g) ban fully and signed it eagerly. He allowed the Community Trust Act to become law without his signature, citing real implementation concerns and acknowledging the bill had problems he expected the next legislative session to address. Seventeen of Maryland's sheriffs, from both rural Eastern Shore counties and suburban jurisdictions, viewed the Community Trust Act as constitutionally overreaching and filed a federal lawsuit within weeks of it becoming law. That litigation is live. The legal status of the Community Trust Act is the most volatile fact in this article.
Part 1: What Federal Immigration Law Actually Says
Immigration enforcement is exclusively a federal function under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The federal government controls who may enter, remain in, and be removed from the United States. State and local governments cannot create their own parallel immigration enforcement systems that conflict with federal law.
The Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering doctrine, established in Printz v. United States (1997), protects states' choices about how to deploy their own law enforcement resources. The federal government cannot compel state and local agencies to enforce federal immigration law. Maryland's decision to ban 287(g) agreements and limit ICE cooperation through the Community Trust Act rests on this constitutional foundation. Maryland is not refusing to allow federal enforcement in Maryland; it is choosing not to have its own law enforcement serve as partners for civil immigration enforcement.
Section 287(g) of the INA allows local agencies to voluntarily enter into agreements with ICE to take on immigration enforcement functions. These agreements are signed by local agencies, not imposed by the federal government. Maryland's 287(g) ban makes it unlawful under state law for Maryland agencies to enter into or maintain such agreements, effectively ending voluntary participation from the state side. ICE cannot force Maryland to maintain the agreements; it can only conduct its own enforcement operations in Maryland without local law enforcement partners.
ICE detainers, Form I-247, are administrative requests, not court orders. When ICE asks a county jail to hold someone beyond their release date, that request is signed by an immigration officer, not a federal judge. The Community Trust Act builds on this distinction, prohibiting county jails from honoring ICE detainers without a judicial warrant signed by a judge. Multiple federal circuits have held that honoring civil detainers without judicial authorization may expose holding agencies to Fourth Amendment liability. Maryland's Community Trust Act reflects those holdings in state law.
The sheriffs' lawsuit against the Community Trust Act argues on four grounds: that the Act forces compliance with conduct federal law criminalizes as harboring; that it obstructs the purposes of federal immigration law; that it is preempted by the INA; and that it unlawfully regulates the federal government in violation of intergovernmental immunity principles. These are serious legal claims. The outcome of the litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland will determine whether and how the Community Trust Act takes effect. As of June 2026, no injunction had been issued.
Arizona v. United States (2012) is the controlling preemption precedent. The Court struck down most of Arizona's SB 1070, holding that the federal government has broad preemptive authority over immigration. Arizona v. United States also confirmed, however, that states have no obligation to participate in federal enforcement. Maryland's approach, restricting how its own agencies cooperate with federal enforcement, is designed to operate within that framework. Whether the Community Trust Act's limits on ICE notification and status inquiries cross into preempted territory is the central legal question in the pending litigation.
Part 2: Maryland State Law
The 2025 Baseline: Nine Counties with 287(g) Agreements
As Maryland entered 2026, nine counties had active 287(g) agreements with ICE: Allegany, Carroll, Cecil, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, Washington, Wicomico, and St. Mary's counties. All nine were using the Jail Enforcement Model, meaning that jail staff screened people in custody for immigration status and facilitated detainer holds, rather than the Task Force Model that puts trained officers into the community for street-level immigration enforcement. According to the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, the Immigration Services Division tracked that for every one 287(g) detainer placed on a person convicted of a violent crime, 115 were placed on people with no convictions at all.
The 2025 General Assembly had passed a bill limiting how long people could be held on ICE detainers to two days after their sentence for state law violations was served. If ICE did not retrieve the person within 48 hours of the scheduled release, they had to be released. This was an earlier protective measure that set the stage for the more comprehensive legislation in 2026.
SB 245/HB 444 - 287(g) Ban (Effective February 17, 2026)
Gov. Moore signed SB 245 and HB 444 as emergency legislation on February 17, 2026, making it effective immediately. It was the first bill signed into law of the 2026 Maryland General Assembly session. The law prohibits state and local jurisdictions from entering into, renewing, or maintaining 287(g) agreements with ICE. Any local jurisdiction with a standing 287(g) agreement was required to terminate it immediately, with a 90-day outer deadline to complete the termination process.
The nine affected counties were Allegany, Carroll, Cecil, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, Washington, Wicomico, and St. Mary's. Maryland Matters reported that despite warnings from sheriffs that eliminating the agreements would increase ICE enforcement rather than reduce it, the counties moved quickly to terminate their agreements. Maryland Matters reported in spring 2026 that Maryland's sheriffs had quickly dropped 287(g) agreements with ICE following the law's passage.
What the 287(g) ban does not restrict: the law explicitly preserves law enforcement's ability to work with federal partners on shared public safety priorities, including the removal of violent offenders, criminal investigations, and lawful coordination within constitutional limits. The ban targets the formal deputization of local officers for civil immigration enforcement, not all contact between Maryland law enforcement and federal agencies.
Gov. Moore said at the signing: 'In Maryland, we will not allow untrained, unqualified and unaccountable agents to deputize our brave local law enforcement officers because Maryland is a community of immigrants.' The Maryland Sheriffs' Association said it was exploring legal action. Several sheriffs argued that eliminating 287(g) agreements would not reduce ICE presence in Maryland but increase it, because ICE would have to conduct its own operations without the controlled jailhouse transfer mechanism that the agreements had provided.
SB 791 - The Community Trust Act (Became Law May 2026, Effective October 1, 2026; Under Federal Litigation)
The Community Trust Act, SB 791, was passed by the Maryland General Assembly on the final day of the 2026 session, April 14, 2026, after a rare Saturday night session that stretched past midnight. The bill passed the House 92-37 as an emergency measure. Gov. Moore allowed it to become law without his signature in May 2026. As emergency legislation, it was expected to take effect upon the governor's signature; because Moore allowed it to pass without his signature, the effective date is October 1, 2026, based on the original bill text. The law is being challenged in federal court.
The Community Trust Act does several distinct things. It prohibits local correctional facilities from honoring ICE detainer requests without a judicial warrant signed by a judge, with narrow exceptions for people who have been convicted of certain qualifying felonies, are on the sex offender registry, or have been sentenced to between 12 and 18 months in a state prison or have a prior out-of-state sentence of at least five years. It prohibits law enforcement from notifying ICE of a person's impending release from custody or transferring custody to ICE without a court order, again with the same narrow felony exceptions. It prohibits law enforcement officers from asking about a person's citizenship, immigration status, or place of birth during a stop, search, or arrest.
Gov. Moore, while allowing the bill to become law, acknowledged real concerns: 'This bill presents real implementation challenges that must be addressed through executive action and in next year's legislative session. Protecting our communities requires seamless coordination among federal, state, and local partners, and the bill creates ambiguities around joint investigations.' He stated he would work with the Attorney General's office to clarify implementation, particularly around joint federal-state investigations where immigration status might be incidentally relevant.
The sheriffs' opposition is significant in both scale and legal backing. Seventeen sheriffs, representing Allegany, Calvert, Caroline, Carroll, Cecil, Dorchester, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, Kent, Somerset, St. Mary's, Talbot, Queen Anne's, Washington, Wicomico, and Worcester counties, filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland with FAIR as legal support. The lawsuit names Gov. Moore, Attorney General Anthony Brown, and the State of Maryland as defendants. The sheriffs argue the Community Trust Act violates the Supremacy Clause by forcing them to engage in conduct that federal law criminalizes as harboring, obstructs the purposes of the INA, is expressly preempted by federal immigration law, and unlawfully regulates the federal government. As of June 2026, the case had been docketed but no hearing had been scheduled and no injunction had been issued. Families and advocates should monitor the litigation status through the ACLU of Maryland.
Pre-Existing Local Protections in Major Jurisdictions
Several large Maryland jurisdictions had protective policies well before the 2026 legislation. Montgomery County, Baltimore County, Baltimore City, Prince George's County, and Anne Arundel County had all cancelled their 287(g) and intergovernmental service agreements before 2025. Smaller municipalities including Takoma Park, Hyattsville, Rockville, Annapolis, Brentwood, Cheverly, Greenbelt, Mount Rainier, Berwyn Heights, Colmar Manor, Forest Heights, Riverdale Park, and Edmonston had adopted local protective ordinances or policies. These jurisdictions were not among the nine that had 287(g) agreements going into 2026. The state law now creates a floor that covers even the nine counties that did have agreements.
Part 3: How State and Federal Law Interact in Maryland
Maryland has constructed a layered protective framework within a relatively short period. The 2025 detainer limitation (48-hour cap), the 2026 287(g) ban, and the Community Trust Act together represent a comprehensive effort to limit the ways in which Maryland's own agencies serve as instruments of federal civil immigration enforcement.
The Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering doctrine is the constitutional backbone of this framework. Maryland cannot be forced by the federal government to maintain 287(g) agreements or to honor ICE detainers. The state's ban on those activities is a lawful exercise of its authority over its own law enforcement resources. This is not constitutionally novel: six other states had already enacted similar 287(g) bans before Maryland, including New Mexico and Maine in late 2025 and early 2026.
The Community Trust Act pushes further into contested territory. The ban on ICE notifications and the prohibition on status inquiries raise questions the sheriffs' lawsuit will test. The sheriffs argue that prohibiting notification to ICE of a detainee's impending release forces them to commit federal crimes, specifically harboring under 8 U.S.C. 1324. The state argues that declining to affirmatively notify federal authorities is not the same as harboring. Courts have not definitively resolved this specific question, and the Maryland litigation may produce one of the first clear rulings on it.
Federal enforcement continues in Maryland independent of state law. ICE can conduct its own operations, make arrests in public spaces, enter private spaces with judicial warrants, and operate without Maryland law enforcement partners. What changes under Maryland's framework is that local jails will not hold people on ICE detainers, local police will not conduct immigration enforcement activities, and ICE cannot expect Maryland agencies to notify it of impending releases or facilitate transfers without judicial authorization.
Arizona v. United States (2012) remains the outer framework. Maryland's laws restrict state cooperation rather than creating state enforcement schemes. That positioning is designed to keep the laws within constitutional limits. Whether the Community Trust Act's specific provisions cross a constitutional line will be decided in the pending federal litigation.
Part 4: What This Means for Families on the Ground
For immigrant families in Maryland, the two laws represent meaningful but legally uncertain protections. The 287(g) ban is fully in effect and is not being litigated. The nine counties that had jail enforcement agreements are no longer screening inmates for immigration status under formal ICE partnership. The pipeline from a county jail booking to an ICE detainer hold is broken in those counties as long as the 287(g) ban holds.
The Community Trust Act's protections are more significant but more legally uncertain. If the law takes effect as written on October 1, 2026, and survives the sheriffs' legal challenge, county jails across Maryland will not be permitted to hold people on ICE detainer requests without a judicial warrant, law enforcement will not be permitted to inquire about immigration status during stops, and ICE will not receive advance notification of release dates from county jails. For families who fear the jail pipeline, these are substantial protections.
The litigation matters. If a federal court issues an injunction blocking the Community Trust Act before October 1, 2026, its protections will not take effect as scheduled. Families should monitor the litigation status. The ACLU of Maryland is the appropriate source for updates at aclu-md.org. As of June 2026, no injunction had been issued.
ICE continues to operate in Maryland under its own authority regardless of state law. ICE can and does conduct enforcement operations in Maryland, including in the Washington suburbs where large immigrant communities live in Montgomery and Prince George's counties. State law limits what Maryland police can do in support of those operations, but it does not prevent the operations from occurring.
Maryland's large and economically important immigrant workforce, concentrated in construction, agriculture, hospitality, and domestic services particularly in the Washington suburbs and on the Eastern Shore, continues to face federal enforcement risk. State law has removed the local law enforcement pathway, but federal direct enforcement remains.
Families in the nine counties that previously had 287(g) agreements, including Harford, Frederick, Cecil, Carroll, Wicomico, St. Mary's, Washington, Garrett, and Allegany counties, should note that those counties' sheriffs are plaintiffs in the litigation challenging the Community Trust Act. This signals that the political and legal environment in those counties will continue to be contested. Even with the 287(g) agreements terminated, the sheriffs in those jurisdictions have made clear their desire to cooperate with ICE and their willingness to use litigation to restore that cooperation.
Part 5: What You Can Actually Do
If ICE Comes to Your Home
Do not open the door. ICE cannot legally enter a home without a judicial warrant signed by a judge. An ICE administrative warrant, Form I-200 (Warrant for Arrest of Alien) or Form I-205 (Warrant of Removal/Deportation), is signed by an immigration officer, not a judge, and does not authorize entry into your home. Ask through the closed door whether the warrant is signed by a judge. If it is not, you may say clearly that you do not consent to entry.
You have the right to remain silent. You are not required to answer questions about your birthplace, how you entered the country, or your immigration status. This right applies regardless of immigration status. Say: 'I am exercising my right to remain silent. I want to speak with a lawyer.'
Do not sign anything without speaking to an immigration attorney. Signing voluntary departure forms or other removal documents can permanently waive important legal rights.
If stopped in public, stay calm. Do not run. Do not physically resist. State that you are exercising your right to remain silent and want a lawyer. Ask if you are free to go. If yes, leave calmly.
Under the Community Trust Act, once it takes effect, law enforcement officers are prohibited from asking about your immigration status, citizenship, or place of birth during a stop, search, or arrest. If asked about these matters by a Maryland officer, you may politely decline to answer.
If a Family Member Is Detained
Use the ICE Online Detainee Locator at locator.ice.gov immediately. You will need the person's country of birth and either their full name and date of birth or their A-Number (Alien Registration Number). People detained in Maryland may be transferred to detention facilities in other states. Locating your family member early is critical.
Call the ICE Detention Reporting and Information Line: 1-888-351-4024.
Call the EOIR Immigration Court Information Line: 1-800-898-7180 for hearing dates and case status.
Contact We Are CASA: wearecasa.org. CASA is Maryland's primary immigrant advocacy and assistance organization. It drove the legislative campaigns behind both the 287(g) ban and the Community Trust Act and has resources and referrals for families facing enforcement.
Contact the ACLU of Maryland: aclu-md.org. The ACLU of Maryland has been a primary legal advocate for the Community Trust Act and monitors its litigation status.
Know the Risk Points in Maryland
ICE operates directly in Maryland independent of state law. The Washington, D.C. suburbs, including Montgomery and Prince George's counties, have large immigrant communities and are areas of active federal enforcement. State protective laws limit what Maryland police can do in support, but do not prevent direct federal operations.
The Community Trust Act's status is legally uncertain as of June 2026. The sheriffs' lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland is pending. If an injunction is issued, the law's protections are suspended during litigation. Monitor the case status through the ACLU of Maryland.
The nine formerly 287(g)-participating counties, particularly on the Eastern Shore and in western Maryland, have sheriffs who are plaintiffs in the litigation and who have publicly opposed the Community Trust Act. The political environment in those jurisdictions is hostile to the new protective framework.
The jail pipeline, while significantly limited by the 287(g) ban and potentially further limited by the Community Trust Act, has not been eliminated for all circumstances. People convicted of certain qualifying felonies remain subject to ICE notification and detainer holds under both laws.
Part 6: Legal Resources in Maryland
We Are CASA: wearecasa.org. CASA is the leading immigrant advocacy organization in Maryland, with a decade of organizing behind the Community Trust Act. They provide direct services, legal referrals, and are the most current source on Maryland immigration policy developments.
ACLU of Maryland: aclu-md.org. The ACLU drove both major 2026 protective bills and is monitoring the sheriffs' litigation against the Community Trust Act. Their website is the best source for current litigation status.
Immigration Advocates Network: immigrationadvocates.org. The national legal aid finder allows you to search for immigration legal aid organizations by state and county.
National Immigrant Justice Center (Chicago): immigrantjustice.org. NIJC provides direct legal services and habeas corpus experience for people in immigration detention.
EOIR Immigration Court Information Line: 1-800-898-7180.
ICE Detainee Locator: locator.ice.gov.
ICE Detention Reporting and Information Line: 1-888-351-4024.
Summary
Maryland enacted two landmark protective laws during 2025-2026. SB 245/HB 444, signed February 17, 2026, immediately banned 287(g) agreements statewide and required the nine counties with active agreements to terminate them. SB 791, the Community Trust Act, passed the final day of the 2026 legislative session, became law without the governor's signature in May 2026, and takes effect October 1, 2026. It prohibits honoring ICE detainers without a judicial warrant (with narrow felony exceptions), bans ICE notification of impending releases and custody transfers without a court order, and prohibits law enforcement from inquiring about immigration status during stops. Seventeen Maryland sheriffs, backed by FAIR, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Community Trust Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. As of June 2026, no injunction had been issued.
Families in Maryland benefit from the 287(g) ban, which is fully in effect, and may benefit from the Community Trust Act once it takes effect and survives legal challenge. ICE continues to operate in Maryland directly. The sheriffs' litigation is the primary factor to monitor. Use the ICE Detainee Locator immediately if a family member is detained, exercise the right to remain silent, and contact We Are CASA or the ACLU of Maryland for current guidance and legal resources.
Sources and verification: Maryland SB 245/HB 444 (Chapter 2, 2026, signed February 17, 2026, effective immediately); Maryland SB 791 (Community Trust Act, became law without governor's signature May 2026, effective October 1, 2026); Gov. Moore signing statement, February 17, 2026 (governor.maryland.gov); Gov. Moore statement on Community Trust Act, May 22, 2026; ACLU of Maryland statement, February 17, 2026 (aclu-md.org); ACLU of Maryland, 'Ten Years in the Making: Maryland Passes the Community Trust Act,' April 13, 2026; We Are CASA signing statement, February 17, 2026 (wearecasa.org); CBS Baltimore, 'Maryland Gov. Moore Signs Bills into Law Ending Law Enforcement Partnerships with ICE,' February 19, 2026; Maryland Matters, 'Moore Signs Bills Banning Agreements Between Local Police, Federal Immigration Agencies,' February 18, 2026; Maryland Matters, 'County Sheriffs File Lawsuit Challenging Community Trust Act,' May 27, 2026; Fox Baltimore, 'Sheriffs File Federal Lawsuit Trying to Block Community Trust Act,' May 2026; Talbot County press release, 'Mid and Upper Shore Sheriffs Join Lawsuit,' May 2026; VisaHQ, 'Maryland House Advances Community Trust Act,' April 12, 2026; The Daily Record, 'Senate Pushes Bill to Limit ICE in MD,' January 22, 2026; Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Volatile items requiring verification: Community Trust Act litigation status in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (no injunction as of June 2026, but litigation active - monitor at aclu-md.org); Community Trust Act effective date (October 1, 2026, subject to court order); Governor Moore's signature or withholding confirmed May 2026. Last verified: June 2026.