Legislation to ban formal agreements between local law enforcement and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cleared its first vote in the Maryland Senate on Thursday.
These formal partnerships are known as 287(g) agreements, which enable local law enforcement to work in collaboration with federal agents to enforce civil immigration laws.
SB0245 would prevent Maryland entities from entering these types of agreements and would require the eight counties that currently participate in them to terminate the partnerships.
While the bill already heard substantial debate in its first committee hearing, it received an additional hour of discussion on the Senate floor.
Republican senators introduced two amendments for consideration — both were rejected.
Sen. Republican Whip Justin Ready (R-Carroll and Frederick Counties) presented an addition that would have required employers in Maryland to use a federal E-Verify system to determine if someone is eligible for employment based on immigration status.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Will Smith (D-Montgomery County) called Ready’s amendment a “significant policy departure” and requested his colleagues reject it — it was voted down 31-13.
Sen. Republican Leader Stephen Hershey (R-Caroline, Cecil, Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties) introduced an amendment that would have allowed local governments and sheriff’s departments to continue to enter and maintain 287(g) agreements.
Smith argued the amendment would have effectively undermined the purpose of the bill, and it was voted down 32-14.
The chamber did adopt a Democratic-led amendment from Sen. Charles Sydnor (D-Baltimore County), which makes the legislation an emergency bill.
This will require counties to eliminate their 287(g) agreements effective immediately if signed by the governor, instead of the previously outlined deadline of July 1, 2026.
Sydnor said there is an urgent need to act due to documentation of ICE agents in other states forcibly entering homes without judicial warrants.
“They're violating the Fourth Amendment. You can't talk about anything else that would be any more foundational to our constitutional laws and public safety,” he said.
General opposition to the bill centered around the current structure of 287(g) agreements in Maryland with Republicans arguing the models are working effectively/
Sen. William Folden (R-Frederick County) pointed out that the ACLU has no active lawsuits filed against any 287(g) programs in Maryland and that only correctional officers, not uniformed law enforcement, participate.
The legislation would not outlaw informal policies or memorandums of understandings (MOUs) that other counties have agreed upon with ICE for civil immigration enforcement purposes, but Folden and Ready believe 287(g) agreements are a more standardized processes
“I don't quite understand why we don't want everybody to actually do 287(g) and have it totally documented and transparent. Instead, we have counties that can pick and choose how they do it. To me, that's more ripe for profiling and targeting,” Ready said.
While Smith does not have a firm stance on informal policies, he argues they are more amenable to local accountability than 287(g) agreements.
“There's a level of political accountability that does not exist under the [287(g)] agreements, which require broad, sweeping mandates — broad, sweeping collaboration,” Smith said. “And when you have that, you have people that are ensnared, people who are accused of very minor offenses, subject to what could otherwise only be described as a deportation pipeline, and there's indiscriminate application there.”
The Senate also gave initial approval to SB0001, which would prohibit law enforcement, while carrying out duties in Maryland, from wearing face coverings, except under specific circumstances.
Both bills are expected to receive a final vote of approval in the Senate on Tuesday.
The House is scheduled to hold its first vote on its version of the 287(g) ban on Friday.
